FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KORZHEVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 25321/24 and 35960/24)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG28 August 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Korzhevskyy and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Diana Sârcu, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings, described in the appended table, had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.6. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).7. In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.8. The Court firstly observes that in application no. 25321/24 Ms Valentyna Nikivna Korzhevska, the second applicant, together with her son, the first applicant, complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of the second set of proceedings (see the appended table) and lack of any effective remedy in this respect in the domestic law. The Court considers that the second applicant, Ms Korzhevska, lacks victim status because she was not a party to the proceedings in question. It follows that this part of application no. 25321/24, as raised by the first applicant, is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.9. As to the remaining complaints raised by the applicants, as described in the table below, having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of those proceedings, as described in the appended table, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 6: violation