****
### 1. Essence of the Decision
The judgment in the case of *Tamakulova and Others v. Ukraine* concerns five joined applications lodged by Ukrainian nationals who challenged the excessive length of civil proceedings in domestic courts and the lack of an effective remedy to address these delays. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention due to the ongoing absence of an effective domestic legal remedy for such judicial delays. Relying on its established jurisprudence, the Court rejected any justification for the protracted proceedings, which in some of these cases exceeded eight years across multiple levels of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ordered the Ukrainian Government to pay the applicants non-pecuniary damages ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 3,000.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Evolution
The decision is structured in a clear, standardized format typical of the Court’s Committee judgments dealing with repetitive issues:
* **Procedure (Paragraphs 1–2):** Establishes the introduction of the applications under Article 34 of the Convention and notes that the Ukrainian Government was formally notified of the complaints.
* **The Facts (Paragraphs 3–4):** Refers to the appended table containing the specific details of the applicants and their complaints regarding the excessive length of civil proceedings.
* **The Law (Paragraphs 5–11):**
* *Joinder of the Applications (Paragraph 5):* The Court merges the five applications into a single procedure due to their identical legal substance.
* *Merits (Paragraphs 6–11):* The Court outlines the criteria for assessing the “reasonableness” of the length of proceedings and establishes the violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13.
* **Application of Article 41 (Paragraph 12):** Addresses just satisfaction, awarding non-pecuniary damages.
* **Operative Part:** The formal, unanimous ruling on admissibility, the violations, and the financial awards, including the default interest rate.
* **Appendix:** A detailed tabular breakdown of each applicant’s case, including the exact duration of the domestic proceedings, the levels of jurisdiction involved, and the specific financial compensation awarded.
**Changes and Evolution Compared to Previous Versions:**
Because this judgment was delivered by a three-judge Committee rather than a Chamber, it does not introduce new legal principles. Instead, it applies the “well-established case-law” (WECL) doctrine. It directly references the leading case of *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine* (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006). The structural significance here is the continued use of the streamlined, simplified judgment format with an appended analytical table. This highlights that the ECtHR views the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine as a systemic, repetitive issue that does not require a full Chamber review, but rather a standardized application of settled precedent.
—
### 3. Main Provisions of the Decision Most Important for Practical Use
For legal practitioners, journalists, and researchers, the most critical provisions of this decision are:
* **The Assessment Criteria for “Reasonable Time” (Paragraph 7):** The Court reiterates the four-part test established in *Frydlender v. France* to determine whether domestic proceedings have been excessively long:
1. The complexity of the case;
2. The conduct of the applicants;
3. The conduct of the relevant state authorities;
4. What was at stake for the applicant in the dispute.
* **The Systemic Violation of Article 13 (Paragraph 10):** The Court explicitly notes that applicants in Ukraine still do not have an effective domestic remedy to accelerate proceedings or obtain compensation for delays. This finding is crucial for future litigants, as it exempts them from having to exhaust ineffective domestic remedies regarding judicial delays before appealing to Strasbourg.
* **The Appendix as a Damages Benchmark (Article 41 Application):** The appended table provides a precise matrix for calculating non-pecuniary damages for judicial delays in Ukraine:
* *Tamakulova (No. 20890/16):* Proceedings lasting 8 years, 2 months, and 21 days across 4 levels of jurisdiction resulted in an award of **EUR 500**.
* *Voronko (No. 19185/25):* Three parallel sets of proceedings (one lasting over 8 years and two pending for over 5 years) resulted in an award of **EUR 3,000**.
* *Yasinskyy (No. 29242/25):* Pending proceedings of over 4 years and 6 months across 2 levels of jurisdiction resulted in **EUR 1,200**.
* *Kravchuk (No. 30675/25):* Proceedings lasting 6 years, 9 months, and 8 days across 3 levels of jurisdiction resulted in **EUR 900**.
* *Klymenko (No. 32185/25):* Proceedings lasting 8 years and 3 months across 3 levels of jurisdiction resulted in **EUR 1,200**.
* **Default Interest Terms:** The judgment specifies that the awards must be paid within three months of the judgment becoming final, after which simple interest is applicable at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
