FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF PARASKUN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 9714/17 and 10 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Paraskun and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Andreas Zünd, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

THE LAW

1.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. THE LOCUS STANDI OF MR Andriy Volodymyrovych Filippov IN APPLICATION No. 16240/17

5.  The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 16240/17 died on 30 March 2024, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s son, Mr Andriy Volodymyrovych Filippov, has requested to pursue the application on his father’s behalf. The Court normally permits the next of kin to pursue an application, provided they have a legitimate interest, where the original applicant died after lodging the application with the Court (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, 26 April 2016; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR‑XII; and Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014). The Court considers that Mr A. Filippov has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application on behalf of his late father and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the case (see, among other authorities, Maylenskiy v. Russia, no. 12646/15, 4 October 2016). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

7.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

8.  In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, in particular, Fesenko v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 18693/16, §§ 19-27, 10 October 2024), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Decides that Mr A. V. Filippov, the son of the applicant in application no. 16240/17, has locus standi in the proceedings;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.