The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Shkuropatskyy and Others v. Ukraine*, concerning complaints about the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian law. The Court found that the length of the proceedings in each applicant’s case was indeed excessive and 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 determined that the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the length of these proceedings, violating Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 800 to EUR 1,300 for non-pecuniary damage. One applicant also raised complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, but the Court rejected this part of the application.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the origin of the applications and the notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, including a list of applicants and details of their applications. The legal analysis section addresses the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the judgment focuses on the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, referencing previous case law, particularly *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, to support its findings. Finally, the judgment addresses the remaining complaints and the application of Article 41, which concerns just satisfaction. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to join the applications, declare certain complaints admissible and others inadmissible, hold that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and order Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts for non-pecuniary damage.
**** The most important provisions of this decision are the reaffirmation of the ECtHR’s stance on the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective remedies. The Court explicitly refers to its previous judgment in *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, indicating a consistent pattern of similar violations. This decision serves as a reminder to Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention to ensure the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and to provide effective remedies for violations of this right. The amounts awarded, while relatively modest, underscore the Court’s finding of a breach and its intention to provide redress to the applicants.
