FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ROGATYUK v. UKRAINE(Application no. 30062/24)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG23 October 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Rogatyuk 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 2 October 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 September 2024.2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.4.  The applicant complained of the limitations on access to a court.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention5.  The applicant complained of the limitations on access to a court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.6.  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).7.  In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI); Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007); Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, §§ 93-96, 19 June 2007); and Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 February 2008), 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 limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court.9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION10.  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 sum indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the limitations on access to a court;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXApplication raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(limitations on access to a court)Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Key issue impairing access to a courtCase-lawFacts and relevant informationAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]30062/2426/09/2024Igor Volodymyrovych ROGATYUK1976 dispute not determined for a particularly lengthy period Aćimović v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, §§ 32-42, ECHR 2003-XI, Balatskyy v. Ukraine, no. 34786/03, §§ 32-33, 25 October 2007, Sailing Club of Chalkidiki “I Kelyfos” v. Greece, nos. 6978/18 and 8547/18,§§ 61-73, 21 November 2019In the case concerning the applicant’s dismissal the Circuit Administrative Court of Kyiv on 08/12/2021 delivered a decision partly in the applicant’s favour having pronounced on this date only its introductory and operative parts. On 22/12/2021 it delivered an additional decision also having pronounced only its introductory and operative parts. On 07/12/2023 the liquidation commission of the Circuit Administrative Court of Kyiv informed the applicant that the full texts were not drafted, and that the case file was transferred to the newly established Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court. The applicant claimed that he had constantly complained about the failure of the court to provide him with copies of the full texts of the decisions in order to appeal against them; he provided evidence of such complaints. By the most recent letter of 28/05/2024 the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court informed him that the full texts of the decisions were not in the casefile, thus, the court is unable to provide them.1,500 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.