****
### 1. Essence of the Decision
This **** judgment concerns a Ukrainian national, Oleksandr Mykhaylovych Kobylyanskyy, who faced domestic criminal proceedings lasting nearly eleven years within a single level of jurisdiction. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the excessive and unreasonable length of these proceedings. The Court also found a violation of Article 13, establishing that the applicant lacked any effective domestic remedy to challenge the protracted nature of his trial. Furthermore, the ECHR identified a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as the applicant was subjected to a continuous restriction on his freedom of movement (an undertaking not to abscond) for over ten years and ten months. Despite finding these multiple violations, the Court did not award any financial compensation (just satisfaction) because the applicant’s representative failed to submit formal claims within the prescribed procedural time limits.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Evolution of Case-Law
The judgment is structured as a simplified Committee decision, which is typically used for cases covered by well-established case-law (WECL). Its structure is organized as follows:
* **Introduction and Procedure (paragraphs 1–3):** Establishes the procedural history, noting the application was lodged on 23 August 2017 by Ms. K.O. Chuyeva on behalf of the applicant.
* **The Facts (paragraphs 4–5):** Refers to the appended table detailing the timeline of the domestic proceedings.
* **The Law (paragraphs 6–13):**
* *Articles 6 § 1 and 13:* Analyzes the length of the proceedings and the lack of domestic remedies.
* *Article 2 of Protocol No. 4:* Addresses the restriction on freedom of movement.
* *Remaining Complaints:* Decides that there is no need to examine the separate Article 13 complaint regarding the freedom of movement restriction.
* **Application of Article 41 (paragraph 14):** Addresses just satisfaction.
* **Operative Part:** Unanimously declares the complaints admissible, finds the violations, and decides not to make a monetary award.
* **Appendix:** A detailed table containing the exact dates, duration, and specific nature of the restriction.
#### Evolution and Changes Compared to Previous Case-Law:
Rather than establishing new legal doctrines, this decision solidifies and applies existing precedents to Ukraine.
* For the Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 violations, the Court directly relies on the landmark case of ***Nechay v. Ukraine* (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021)**. This indicates that the ECHR continues to view the lack of an effective remedy for lengthy proceedings in Ukraine as a persistent, unresolved systemic issue.
* For the Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 violation, the Court relies on ***Ivanov v. Ukraine* (no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006)** and ***Nikiforenko v. Ukraine* (no. 14613/03, 18 February 2010)**. The decision demonstrates a consistent judicial line: holding an individual under an “undertaking not to abscond” for over a decade without active progress in the case is an automatic, unjustifiable restriction on freedom of movement.
—
### 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 text are:
* **The “Reasonable Time” Criteria (Paragraph 7):** The text reiterates the classic ECHR test for assessing the length of proceedings. It must be evaluated based on:
1. The complexity of the case;
2. The conduct of the applicant;
3. The conduct of the relevant authorities;
4. What was at stake for the applicant.
* **Extreme Duration in a Single Jurisdiction (Appendix):** The text highlights a stark timeline—the proceedings lasted from **25 June 2012 to 9 May 2023 (10 years, 10 months, and 15 days)**—and emphasizes that this massive delay occurred within just **one level of jurisdiction**. This serves as a clear benchmark for what constitutes an “excessive” delay.
* **The Illegitimacy of Long-term Travel Restrictions (Paragraph 12 & Appendix):** The Court confirms that keeping an accused person under an “undertaking not to abscond” for over 10 years is a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. This is highly useful for defense lawyers challenging prolonged preventive measures in Ukraine.
* **The Strict Application of Rule 60 (Paragraph 14):** This is a crucial cautionary tale for legal practitioners. Even though the Court found clear violations of fundamental rights, it made **no financial award** because the applicant’s representative failed to submit just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. This underscores that procedural compliance in Strasbourg is absolute; substantive victory does not guarantee compensation if formal steps are missed.
