FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF YATSUN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 61401/15 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG11 December 2025  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Yatsun 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 20 November 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 LAW JOINDER 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.THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION No. 61401/15 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in respect of application no. 61401/15 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 VI).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION7.  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.8.  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).9.  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.10.  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.11.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.12.  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 CONVENTION13.  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;Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 61401/15 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;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 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 11 December 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]   61401/1501/12/2015Nadiya Dmytrivna YATSUN1955   23/08/200505/08/2011 20/05/201012/12/2019 13 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400   26948/2321/06/2023Maksym Gennadiyovych USTINSKYY1974   29/12/2015 28/02/2023 7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 1 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900   6043/2511/02/2025Gennadiy Viktorovych SLOBODENYUK1968 Sagaydak Andriy VasylyovychDnipro01/10/2015 pending More than 10 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 5 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 4,200  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.