****
### 1. Essence of the Decision
This judgment concerns a Ukrainian citizen, Oleksandr Mykhaylovych Kobylyanskyy, who was subjected to criminal proceedings lasting nearly eleven years within a single level of jurisdiction. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled that this extraordinary delay violated the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court found a violation of Article 13 due to the persistent lack of an effective domestic remedy in Ukraine to address or accelerate such delayed proceedings. Crucially, the Court also determined that keeping the applicant under a restrictive “undertaking not to abscond” for over a decade constituted an unjustified restriction on his freedom of movement, violating Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Despite establishing these severe human rights violations, the Court made no financial award for damages because the applicant’s legal representative failed to submit a formal claim for just satisfaction within the prescribed time limits.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Evolution of Case-Law
The judgment is structured systematically, following the standard format of the Court’s Committee decisions, which are designed to resolve repetitive cases efficiently:
* **Introduction and Procedure:** Establishes the parties, the representation of the applicant by an Odesa-based lawyer, and the lodging of the application in August 2017.
* **The Facts:** Outlines the timeline of the domestic criminal proceedings and the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant.
* **The Law:** This is the core analytical section, divided into:
* *Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:* Assessing the length of the trial and the lack of domestic remedies.
* *Other Alleged Violations under Well-Established Case-Law:* Assessing the restriction on freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
* *Remaining Complaints:* Deciding that there is no need to examine the secondary Article 13 complaint regarding the freedom of movement.
* *Application of Article 41:* Dealing with the lack of just satisfaction claims.
* **The Operative Part (Holding):** The formal, unanimous declaration of the violations.
* **Appendix:** A detailed factual table summarizing the exact dates, duration (10 years, 10 months, and 15 days), and the specific nature of the restriction on movement.
**Changes and Evolution Compared to Previous Case-Law:**
This decision does not forge new legal ground but rather solidifies and applies well-established case-law (WECL) to Ukraine’s ongoing systemic issues.
* For the Article 6 and 13 violations, the Court directly relies on the precedent of *Nechay v. Ukraine* (2021), confirming that the legal landscape in Ukraine regarding the lack of effective remedies for lengthy trials has not improved.
* For the Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 violation, the Court references *Ivanov v. Ukraine* (2006) and *Nikiforenko v. Ukraine* (2010). The evolution here lies in the Court’s streamlined use of the “Committee” procedure to quickly process these cases, signaling that prolonged travel bans/undertakings not to abscond during endless trials are now treated as routine, clear-cut violations of human rights that do not require extensive new legal analysis.
—
### 3. Main Provisions of the Decision Most Important for Practical Use
For journalists, legal practitioners, and human rights advocates, the most critical elements of this decision are:
* **The “Reasonable Time” Standard in Criminal Proceedings (Article 6 § 1):** The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of proceedings must be assessed based on the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant, the conduct of the authorities, and what is at stake. A duration of over 10 years for a single level of jurisdiction, without any justifying circumstances, is a clear-cut violation.
* **The Systemic Absence of Domestic Remedies (Article 13):** The judgment confirms that Ukraine still fails to provide an effective domestic mechanism (either to speed up trials or to offer financial compensation) for individuals trapped in excessively long criminal proceedings.
* **The Abuse of Preventive Measures (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4):** This is a highly practical point. The Court ruled that an “undertaking not to abscond” (a common preventive measure in Ukraine) cannot be maintained indefinitely. Keeping an individual under such a restriction for over 10 years without continuous, rigorous justification is an autonomous violation of the right to freedom of movement.
* **The Strict Application of Procedural Rules (Article 41 / Rule 60):** This serves as a vital warning to legal practitioners. Even when the Court finds multiple severe violations of the Convention, it will strictly apply Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Because the applicant’s lawyer failed to submit the claims for just satisfaction in the correct format and timeframe, the Court awarded zero euros in compensation. This highlights that procedural compliance is just as critical as the merits of the human rights abuse itself.
