****
The judgment in *Mishin and Others v. Ukraine* (applications nos. 29381/16 and 13 others) concerns a systemic issue regarding the administration of justice in Ukraine, specifically the excessive duration of criminal proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined 14 joined applications where the applicants argued that their cases had been pending for unreasonable periods, ranging from several years to over a decade. The Court concluded that the Ukrainian authorities failed to ensure that these criminal proceedings were conducted within a “reasonable time,” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court found that the applicants lacked any effective domestic remedy to challenge these delays, constituting a violation of Article 13. Consequently, the Court ordered the Ukrainian government to pay varying amounts of compensation to the applicants for the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to these protracted legal processes.
The structure of the decision follows the standard format for a Committee-level judgment of the Fifth Section of the ECHR. It begins with the procedural history and the joinder of the applications, which is a common practice when multiple cases share the same legal subject matter. The core of the decision is divided into the assessment of the alleged violations of Articles 6 and 13, followed by the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. This judgment aligns with established case-law, notably referencing the leading case of *Nechay v. Ukraine* (2021), which serves as the precedent for the Court’s findings on the lack of effective domestic remedies for length-of-proceedings complaints in Ukraine. The decision is notable for its consolidated approach, addressing a diverse group of applicants in a single document to streamline the judicial process.
The most important provisions for legal practitioners and observers are:
* **The “Reasonable Time” Criterion:** The Court reaffirmed that the reasonableness of proceedings is assessed based on the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants, and the conduct of the national authorities. The Court explicitly stated that it found no justification for the delays in the present cases, emphasizing that the burden of ensuring a timely trial rests with the State.
* **Systemic Lack of Remedy:** The Court’s finding under Article 13 confirms that there remains no effective mechanism within the Ukrainian legal system for individuals to seek redress or accelerate proceedings that have become excessively long. This is a critical point for future litigation, as it underscores the necessity of applying to the ECHR when domestic avenues are exhausted or non-existent.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded specific monetary compensation to each applicant, ranging from €500 to €4,800, depending on the specific duration and circumstances of their individual cases. These awards are payable within three months, with default interest provisions included to ensure compliance.
* **Precedential Weight:** By citing *Nechay v. Ukraine* and *Ganysh and Others v. Ukraine*, the Court reinforces a consistent line of jurisprudence, signaling that Ukraine remains under scrutiny for structural deficiencies in its criminal justice system regarding the speed of trials.
