FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PIDDUBNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 22973/23 and 3 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG28 August 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Piddubnyy 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, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 3 July 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 their pre-trial detention. They 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 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They 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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was 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-LAW11.  The applicants 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its findings 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, 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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose 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(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 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd 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 birthRepresentative’s name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionSpecific defectsOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   22973/2324/05/2023 and 29747/2409/10/2024Oleg Anatoliyovych PIDDUBNYY1975 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDnipro11/01/2017 to11/07/20247 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s) collective detention orders, 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 remandArt. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention (see Melnikv. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006 and Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020) –Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 14/01/2017 - pending1.5-3.8 sq. m per inmate; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food; Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006 and Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 4057/17, 30 January 2020); Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 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)9,800250   27737/2413/08/2024Anatoliy Vasylyovych TSURKAN1983   18/12/2021 to19/12/2022  09/03/2023 to25/03/2024  18/07/2024 to15/11/20241 year(s) and 2 day(s)  1 year(s) and 17 day(s)  3 month(s) and 29 day(s) fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressedArt. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - 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)1,500-   30052/2405/10/2024Vadym Borysovych SOROKIN1969 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDnipro14/01/2017 to14/07/20247 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s) collective detention orders;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 remandArt. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 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)3,000250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.