FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF USATYUK v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 1902/25)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 May 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Usatyuk 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 9 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  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 30 December 2024.
2.  The applicant was represented by Ms K.O. Chuyeva, a lawyer practising in Odesa.
3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
7.  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).
8.  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.
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 length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was unreasonably excessive.
10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
      OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11.  The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in the case set out in the appended table.
    REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12.  The applicant also raised complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
13.  The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.  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,
     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
     Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
     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  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;
  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 13 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
 
 Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
 Acting Deputy Registrar President
 

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction

Applicant’s name
Year of birth
 

Representative’s name and location

Period of detention

Length of detention

Specific defects

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]

1902/25
30/12/2024

Volodymyr Viktorovych USATYUK
1986
 

Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa

06/12/2023 to
22/05/2025

1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 17 day(s)
 

fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation in so far as it reduces the risks of collusion or absconding 

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015)

1,000

250

 
 

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.