FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF GRYGORENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 40298/23 and 3 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG3 April 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Grygorenko 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 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION5.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.6.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).7.  In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was unreasonably lengthy.9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS10.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.11.  The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the pre-trial detention;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 5 § 3 of the Convention(excessive length of pre-trial detention)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Representative’s name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionSpecific defectsAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damageper applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   40298/2325/10/2023Oleksandr Anatoliyovych GRYGORENKO1988 RomanyukValeriy IllichChernivtsi02/08/2019pendingMore than5 year(s) and6 month(s) and26 day(s) failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice3,000250   1119/2426/12/2023Leonid Leonidovych KOTSENKO1980   30/11/2015to23/06/2017 25/09/2018to20/05/2021 11/02/2022pending1 year(s) and6 month(s) and25 day(s) 2 year(s) and7 month(s) and26 day(s) More than3 year(s) and17 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; lack of diligence on behalf of the authorities while extending his detention3,000-   2589/2402/01/2024Roman Volodymyrovych SAVONYUK2003   08/07/2022to01/02/20241 year(s) and6 month(s) and25 day(s) use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint1,000-   10680/2401/02/2024Ivan Olegovych MOTSNYY1981 VoronyukKateryna YuriyivnaRivne15/08/2018to03/04/20245 year(s) and7 month(s) and20 day(s) failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed3,000250  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.