FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KOROL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 82560/17 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG9 October 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Korol 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 18 September 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.4.  The applicants complained of the limitations on access to a court. In application no. 34051/23, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  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 of the Convention6.  The applicants complained principally of the limitations on access to a court. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.7.  The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court – that is the right to institute proceedings before the courts in civil matters – constitutes an element which is inherent in the right set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017).8.  In the leading cases cited in the appended table below, the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9.  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 limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court.10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11.  In application no. 34051/23, the applicant submitted other complaints raising issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case‑law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in in the cases set out in the appended table.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuzmenko, cited above, § 41), 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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the limitations on access to a court;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(limitations on access to a court)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationKey issue impairing access to a courtCase-lawFacts and relevant informationOther complaints under well‑established case‑lawAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   82560/1730/11/2017Bogdan Yosypovych KOROL1951   prohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aidKreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova, no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007By a ruling of 20/04/2017, upheld by the Higher Administrative Court on 02/06/2017, in the proceedings concerning the admissibility of the applicant’s claim regarding the damage caused to his property, the Lvivskyy Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request for an exemption from paying approximately 55 euros (EUR) in court fees based on his alleged lack of funds. In support of his request, he provided a certificate of his monthly pension of approximately EUR 45, which allegedly was his only income. The court of appeal reasoned that the certificate contained no comprehensive information to assess the applicant’s financial situation, without providing any further details in that regard. 1,500-   13023/1805/03/2018Sergiy Oleksandrovych GLUSHCHEVSKYY1956   unavailability or unjustifiably restricted scope of judicial review of the disputeTregubenko v. Ukraine, no. 61333/00, §§ 44-45, 2 November 2004, Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, §§ 29-32,10 December 2009In 2016, following the State Fiscal Service’s (“the SFS”) refusal to pay the applicant interest accrued on his money seized in the framework of criminal proceedings which were eventually terminated, the applicant brought an action before the courts against the SFS seeking the recovery of the interest in question. By a decision of 27/09/2017, the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters dismissed the applicant’s action and terminated the proceedings, holding that it fell outside the courts’ jurisdiction and that it was for the SFS to decide on the claimed interest. 1,500-   61291/1924/10/2019Ivan Ivanovych KARPENKO1973   prohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aidČolić v. Croatia, no. 49083/18, §§ 39-60,18 November 2021By the final judgment of 12/06/2019, the Sumy Court of Appeal, in a public hearing, partially upheld the first‑instance judgment allowing the applicant’s compensation claim against the detention facility, in which he was detained, alleging that it had unlawfully opened one of his letters. The appellate court reduced the amount of compensation the applicant had been awarded by the first-instance judgment from 1,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (approximately EUR 32) to UAH 100 (approximately EUR 3). It also ordered the applicant, a life prisoner without income, to bear the court fees paid by the detention facility for its appeal - UAH 1,037.34 (approximately EUR 33).  500-   2999/2027/12/2019SHYPPING LAYN, TOV2015 Ivashkova Nadiya YevgeniyivnaCherkasyprohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aidKreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova, no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007, Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 50-64, 10 January 2006By a decision of 15/04/2019 in the administrative proceedings in which the applicant challenged a tax penalty of UAH 66,921,437 (approximately EUR 2,000,000), the Supreme Court dismissed its request for a reduction of the court fee of UAH 1,233,400 (approximately EUR 40,475) - in respect of which the applicant company had already paid UAH 38,420 (approximately EUR 1,260) - based on its alleged lack of funds, in support of which it provided copies of its financial report and tax declarations. Consequently, the applicant company’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal of 23/01/2019 dismissing its claim on the merits was not examined. The Supreme Court reasoned that the applicant company had not provided sufficient grounds for the requested reduction and that pursuant to Article 8 of the Court Fee Act only individuals were eligible for such a reduction. 1,500250   36465/2126/04/2021SKAYSITI-GRUP, TOV2013 Kovalchuk Vitaliy VolodymyrovychSofiyivska Borshchagivkaprohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aidKreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova, no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007, Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 50-64,10 January 2006, Nalbant and Others v. Turkey, no. 59914/16, §§ 32-47,3 May 2022By a decision of 13/12/2019 in commercial proceedings concerning a debt recovery, the Cherkasy Regional Commercial Court dismissed the applicant company’s request for exemption or deferral of the court fee of UAH 245,942 (approximately EUR 9,273) based on its alleged lack of funds (income or assets), in support of which it provided copies of its financial report, bank statement and documents confirming its attempts to recover the debt due to it. The court reasoned that pursuant to Article 8 of the Court Fee Act only individuals could be relieved from the obligation to pay court fees, but not legal entities. On 26/02/2020 and 28/10/2020 the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 13/12/2019. 1,500250   7810/2224/01/2022Oleksandra Ivanivna KUZMYCH1961   courts ignored a claim or otherwise failed to decide on itPonomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, §§ 37-39,14 June 2007, Plakhteyev and Plakhteyeva v. Ukraine, no. 20347/03, §§ 36-38,12 March 2009By a decision of 06/08/2021, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal (“the appellate court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim of 17/03/2020 for recalculation of pension for various periods in 2010-2011, 2014 and from 2016 onwards. The appellate court, referring to the periods in 2010-2011 and 2014, held that the claim had been lodged out of the applicable six-month time‑limit (Article 122-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice). On 20/09/2021 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings for the applicant’s failure to substantiate an exceptional reason for cassation review, as required under domestic law. Consequently, the applicant’s claim concerning the period from 2016 was left unexamined.  1,500-   34051/2325/08/2023Yuriy Mykhaylovych BILYNSKYY-GRODZ1983 Reshota Volodymyr VolodymyrovychLvivambiguity regarding the State body against which the claim was to be directedKostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria, no. 17868/07, §§ 35-43, 27 March 2008, Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, §§ 72-76,26 July 2011On 17/01/2017 the Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters upheld the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal’s decision of 02/11/2016 dismissing the applicant’s compensation claim of approximately EUR 5,820 lodged in August 2015 against the State Automobile Inspection in connection with its allegedly unlawful actions. The courts found that the claim had to be directed against the State Treasury. In June 2017 the applicant lodged with the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv a similar claim against the State Treasury. On 22/06/2022 the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the decision of that court of 17/04/2019 dismissing the applicant’s claim on the ground that the proper defendant in this case was “the state body, the actions of which were challenged”. On 08/05/2023 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings since the applicant’s cassation appeal, in which he raised the issue of inconsistency of the courts’ decisions, was inadmissible ratione valoris.Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - 05/08/2015 - 08/05/2023, 3 levels of jurisdiction (see Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings - (see Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006)1,950250  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.