FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SEMENOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 9200/20 and 10 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG13 November 2025    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Semenov 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 16 October 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 excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The applicant in application no. 9200/20 raised additional complaints under the Convention provisions.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 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained that the length of the civil 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.7.  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).8.  In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), 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 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.10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 9200/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.13.  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 application no. 9200/20 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), 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 civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of application no. 9200/20 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;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 13 November 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 and Article 13 of the Convention(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Representative’s name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal length Levels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]   9200/2008/02/2020Vadym Vyacheslavovych SEMENOV1977 Sagaydak Andriy VasylyovychDnipro23/04/2015 29/03/2021 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction500   6167/2412/02/2024Ivanna Pavlivna KYZYMCHUK1972 Yurovskyy Dmytro BorysovychKyiv09/12/2020 pending More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction1,200   4945/2530/01/2025Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO1949   02/10/2019 pending More than 6 year(s) and 1 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction500   7634/2504/03/2025Maryana Vasylivna KONIZHAY1975 Konizhay RomanSalzburg16/07/2012 05/11/2024 12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction4,700   7750/2524/02/2025Yuriy Anatoliyovych MAKSYOM1979 Akhramovych Yan IgorovychKyiv13/01/2022 20/02/2025 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction Appeal proceedings initiated by the applicant following the decision of 20/02/2025, ended with the final decision of 30/05/2025500   8006/2507/03/2025Oleksandr Pavlovych KORNIYETS1972 Svitlana Valeriyivna KORNIYETS1971Fedosin Artem ViktorovychPuddletown03/12/201205/12/2018 22/12/201624/10/2024(the final decision was received by the applicants on 13/11/2024)9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400   10133/2515/03/2025Karina Sergiyivna ZABOLOTNA1996 Kozachuk Mykhaylo VasylyovychKyiv17/12/2020 pending More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction1,200   10666/2520/03/2025Oleg Oleksandrovych KOSTYUK1965   Roman Yaroslavovych SMETANSKYY1967   01/07/200327/09/200704/05/2012    25/05/200527/09/200704/05/201201/02/200706/11/200920/12/2024    01/02/200706/11/200920/12/2024 18 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 29 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 16 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction5,000   10771/2525/03/2025Volodymyr Yakovych BOYCHUK1957   06/06/2014 28/11/2024 10 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction2,400 10892/2521/03/2025Mykola Ivanovych KUROCHKA1965 Kozachuk Mykhaylo VasylyovychKyiv15/12/2020 pending More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction1,500 11960/2501/04/2025Leonid Mykolayovych SOKOLOVSKYY1960 Kozachuk Mykhaylo VasylyovychKyiv14/12/2021 30/04/2025 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 17 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction900  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.