FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SHTEFAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 11922/24 and 12 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG13 November 2025  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shtefan and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Gilberto Felici, Diana Sârcu, 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 criminal 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 LOCUS STANDI OF MR Yevgen Ivanovych SUCHKOV6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 25079/24, the Court notes that the applicant died on 29 March 2025, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s daughter, Ms Tetyana Yevgenivna Suchkova, has requested to pursue the application on her father’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Petr Korolev v. Russia, no. 38112/04, §§ 43-45, 21 October 2010; Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1985/05 and 4 others, §§ 73-75, 19 April 2016; and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION7.  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.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, 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).9.  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.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, 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;     Decides that Ms Suchkova, the daughter of the applicant in application no. 25079/24, has locus standi in the proceedings;     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;     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 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 criminal 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 lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]   11922/2401/04/2024Vladyslav Oleksandrovych SHTEFAN1980 Doroga-Vorobyeva Alisa YuriyivnaKyiv07/06/2016 pending More than 9 years and 3 months and 16 days1 level of jurisdiction3,600   15395/2407/05/2024Gennadiy Yevstafyevych DANKO1970 Kazarnovskyy Oleksandr LvovychOdesa30/03/2009 pending More than 16 years and 5 months and 24 days1 level of jurisdiction7,800   15722/2407/05/2024Vitaliy Grygorovych BODACHEVSKYY1979 Kazarnovskyy Oleksandr LvovychOdesa30/03/2009 pending More than 16 years and 5 months and 24 day1 level of jurisdiction7,800   17145/2402/05/2024Zaza Volodymyrovych MOSESHVILI1975 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDnipro24/02/2020 pending More than 5 years and 7 months2 levels of jurisdiction1,500   17885/2406/06/2024Yaroslav Mykhaylovych STEPANCHAK1978 MatusTaras AnatoliyovychTernopil SamulyakMykhaylo YuriyovychTernopil23/03/2018 06/02/2024 5 years and 10 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction 500   18648/2404/06/2024Sergiy Mykolayovych BUSEL1980   04/09/2019 pending More than 6 years and 19 days2 levels of jurisdiction1,500   19000/2406/06/2024Andriy Petrovych KYRYCHUK1973 YelovVitaliy AndriyovychLutsk23/05/2017 07/02/2024 6 years and 8 months and 16 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   20161/2425/06/2024Viktoriya Stanislavivna KALUGA1974 SamaretsAlina MykolayivnaKyiv05/09/2014 pending More than 11 years and 18 days2 levels of jurisdiction 3,600   25079/2417/08/2024YevgenIvanovych SUCHKOV1958Died in 2025 Suchkova Tetyana YevgenivnaKyiv26/02/2014 29/04/2024 10 years and 2 months and 4 days1 level of jurisdiction 4,200 30211/2428/09/2024Sergiy Oleksiyovych GONCHAROV1982 Shadrin Oleksandr SergiyovychIrpin02/02/2017 28/05/2024 7 years and 3 months and 27 days3 level of jurisdiction 900 30417/2430/09/2024Lyudmyla Sergiyivna BURLAKOVA1951 Poznyak Oleksandr MykolayovychKyiv07/09/2019 pending More than 6 years and 16 days1 level of jurisdiction 1,800 33581/2431/10/2024SergiyIvanovych KRASNYANSKYY1986 SobynaPavlo MykolayovychOkhtyrka16/03/2018 pending More than 7 years and 6 months and 7 days1 level of jurisdiction3,000 35842/2407/11/2024Svitlana Oleksandrivna GORBUSHKO1974 SobynaPavlo MykolayovychOkhtyrka24/11/200828/05/201520/01/2017 29/12/201405/03/2016pending More than 15 years and 6 months and 16 days2 levels of jurisdiction 6,600 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.