FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ALENGOZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 14500/25 and 5 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
2 April 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Alengoz 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 12 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  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 FACTS
3.  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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE LAW        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  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 CONVENTION
6.  The applicants complained that the length of the criminal 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8.  In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) 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.
    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds 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 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard;
     Holds  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;
  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 2 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
 
 Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
 Acting Deputy Registrar President
 
 
 

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.

Application no.
Date of introduction

Applicant’s name
Year of birth
 

Representative’s name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length
Levels of jurisdiction

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

   

14500/25
24/04/2025

Denis
Viktorovych ALENGOZ
1986
 

Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa

20/11/2016
 

pending
 

More than 9 years and 3 months
 
1 level of jurisdiction
 

3,600

   

18188/25
30/05/2025

Oleg
Olegovych MINKOVSKYY
1968
 

Ogorilko
Yuriy Volodymyrovych
Chervonograd

12/04/2017
 

pending
 

More than 8 years and 10 months and 8 days
 
3 levels of jurisdiction
 

1,800

   

18838/25
11/06/2025

Taras Yaroslavovych GRANAT
1982
 

 
 

16/09/2015
 

11/02/2025
 

9 years and 4 months and 27 days
 
3 levels of jurisdiction
 

1,800

   

20476/25
17/06/2025

Vitaliy Sergiyovych KIRIK
1986
 

Sydorchuk Kateryna Anatoliyivna
Mykolayiv

07/10/2022
 

pending
 

More than 3 years and 4 months and 13 days
 
2 levels of jurisdiction
 
The proceedings in the present case commenced on 16/11/2010. On 06/10/2022 the Court had already found violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6-1 in view of excessive length of criminal proceedings (Kryzhanovskyy and Others v. Ukraine, app. no. 16218/17 and others, 6 October 2022)
 

2,000

   

23310/25
17/07/2025

Maksym Viktorovych DROZDENKO
1975
 

 

11/03/2011
 

pending
 

More than 14 years and 11 months and 9 days
 
1 level of jurisdiction
 

7,200

   

23374/25
12/07/2025

Sergiy Grygorovych LYUBINETSKYY
1984
 

Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa

16/11/2009
 

pending
 

15 years and 3 months
 
2 levels of jurisdiction
 

3,800

 

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