FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF POPOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 22429/23 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG3 April 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Popova and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 13 March 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 LAWJOINDER 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 that the length of the criminal proceedings in question 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).7.  In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.8.  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 the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.9.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention(excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]   22429/2301/06/2023Larysa Vasylivna POPOVA1966 FedosinArtem ViktorovychPuddletown19/09/2011 25/07/2023 11 years and10 months and7 days3 levels of jurisdiction3,600   5185/2403/02/2024Vitaliy Oleksandrovych SURZHAN1978 Bondarenko YuriyYuryevichKropyvnystkyy15/05/2016 30/04/2024 7 years and11 months and16 days3 levels of jurisdiction800   14971/2414/05/2024Gennadiy Mykolayovych KONYEV1961 Podosinov Andriy OleksandrovychKyiv27/10/2016 24/01/2024 7 years and2 months and29 days2 levels of jurisdiction1,800   17286/2430/05/2024Sergiy Pavlovych PRYKHODKO1978 Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo OleksandrovychKyiv28/11/2014 pending More than 10 years and 3 months1 level of jurisdiction 4,200   19121/2429/06/2024OlegMOLIN1966   29/05/2014 pending More than 10 years and 9 months1 level of jurisdiction 4,200   20179/2405/07/2024Oleksandr Yukhymovych RABZI1981 GlazovOleksiy OlegovychOdesa05/02/2013 05/03/2024 11 years and1 month and1 day2 levels of jurisdiction3,600   23176/2429/07/2024Leonid Borysovych MYTKO1957   06/11/2009 pending More than 15 years and 3 months and22 days2 levels of jurisdiction6,000  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.