Ukraine and ECtHR Judgments: Between Obligations and Reality

Authors:
Angela Pavlenko, Attorney, Grain Law Firm
Anton Babynets, Paralegal, Grain Law Firm

Since its establishment in 1959, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) has played a significant role in shaping and developing an effective mechanism for the protection of human rights.

The case-law of the ECtHR has a substantial impact on the national legal systems of the Council of Europe member states, as the Court’s judgments not only identify specific violations but also require states to amend domestic legislation, judicial practice, and procedures in order to prevent similar violations in the future. In other words, it serves as a clear indicator of issues that must be addressed. However, the question remains whether these issues are effectively resolved and whether ECtHR judgments are properly implemented by Ukraine, a member state of the Council of Europe and a party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – the Convention).

The Supreme Court of Ukraine regularly publishes reviews of ECtHR case-law covering judgments delivered in recent months. Moreover, an analysis of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions shows that Ukrainian national courts, in almost every judgment, refer to ECtHR findings in leading cases. However, instead of relying on recent jurisprudence, courts mostly cite ECtHR decisions adopted decades ago.

In addition, it is a widespread belief that merely referencing any ECtHR judgment automatically strengthens legal arguments. As a result, citations to ECtHR case-law in procedural documents have become more of a matter of formality than a reflection of the actual use of relevant and up-to-date jurisprudence.

Accordingly, the issues of practical application of ECtHR judgments by national courts and the execution of judgments delivered against Ukraine — long the subject of discussion — remain relevant and unresolved in 2025.

First of all, it should be noted that, pursuant to Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Execution of Judgments and Application of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights,” the Court’s case-law constitutes a source of law and must be taken into account by national courts when adjudicating cases.

However, the main problem in the practical application of ECtHR judgments by Ukrainian courts lies in insufficient awareness of the Court’s up-to-date case-law, limited access to full texts of ECtHR judgments, and the lack of systematically translated materials in Ukrainian.

The use of ECtHR case-law remains formal and selective, often without proper analysis or justification in light of the specific circumstances of individual cases. Moreover, judges often interpret ECtHR jurisprudence differently, resulting in inconsistencies in judicial practice, or alternatively, deliberately avoid referencing ECtHR judgments — particularly where they contradict established judicial positions.

Furthermore, the ECtHR has repeatedly found violations of the right to a fair trial, particularly in relation to excessive length of proceedings caused by a reduced judiciary and excessive caseloads. However, national courts largely fail to take these violations into account and do not adopt appropriate measures to comply with the procedural standards established by the Convention, not to mention the consistent application of ECtHR case-law in pending cases.

A similar situation is observed among parties to proceedings, who frequently cite ECtHR judgments in almost every procedural document, yet often without proper analysis of their content. Fragmentary use of ECtHR case-law—particularly citation of legal positions irrelevant to the specific case — is therefore unacceptable.

Secondly, an equally pressing issue concerns the execution of ECtHR judgments against Ukraine, a member of the Council of Europe and a party to the Convention.

Pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention, Ukraine is obliged to execute final ECtHR judgments in any cases to which it is a party.

The Law of Ukraine “On the Execution of Judgments and Application of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights” defines the procedure for executing ECtHR judgments, remedying identified violations, implementing European human rights standards into the national judicial system, and creating conditions to reduce the number of applications submitted to the Court.

In 2024, marking the 75th anniversary of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers once again emphasized the significant contribution of the European Convention system to the protection of human rights and the rule of law, including in Ukraine.

It was highlighted that the system for supervising the execution of judgments has once again demonstrated its resilience. At the same time, serious challenges remain. All member states must make maximum efforts to ensure the full effectiveness of the Convention system.

As stated by the President of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in October 2024 before the Parliamentary Assembly:
“Execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is not a choice, but an international legal obligation voluntarily undertaken by member states. Full and prompt execution of the Court’s judgments by all member states is essential for the Convention system and is a priority of the Council of Europe.”

At the same time, in recent years, the Committee of Ministers has repeatedly noted significant delays in the execution of ECtHR judgments against Ukraine, indicating systemic problems in this area.

Based on data from the Committee of Ministers for 2022–2024, interim results for 2025, and information published by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR, it is necessary to present the following updated statistics.

General statistics of cases against Ukraine

As of 1 January 2025, the number of pending ECtHR cases against Ukraine amounted to 7,703 (12.7% of the total caseload).

In 2024 alone, the ECtHR examined 2,885 applications concerning Ukraine, of which 2,329 were declared inadmissible or struck out of the register.

Although only a small proportion of applications result in admissible cases and judgments, even these judgments are not fully executed by Ukraine within the prescribed time limits.

According to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, a total of 2,263 cases concerning Ukraine have been subject to supervision since ratification of the Convention. This represents the total number of cases in which the ECtHR found violations by Ukraine. Of these: 240 are leading cases, i.e. cases in which the Court identifies a new or important violation indicating a structural or systemic problem requiring not only payment of compensation but also legislative, judicial, or administrative reform; and 2,023 are repetitive cases, i.e. cases arising from already identified issues that the state has failed to resolve.

Dynamics of non-executed cases (2022–2024)

As of 31 December 2024, 842 cases remained under execution supervision (compared to 766 in 2023 and 716 in 2022), including 106 leading cases and 736 repetitive cases. Of the 106 leading cases, 48 were subject to the enhanced procedure (compared to 50 in 2023 and 51 in 2022), while 58 were under the standard procedure.

Among leading cases under the enhanced procedure, 41 have been pending execution for more than five years. Similarly, 29 leading cases under the standard procedure have been pending for more than five years, including 18 cases pending for over 10 years.

As statistics change almost daily, it is noted that as of 7 March 2025, more than 100 leading cases remained unexecuted.

Closed cases

• 2022: 67 cases (16 leading)
• 2023: 75 cases (24 leading)
• 2024: 75 cases (1 leading)

Of the cases closed in 2024:

1. 72 repetitive cases were closed due to lack of need or possibility of further individual measures;
2. only one leading case was closed under enhanced supervision;
3. two leading cases were closed under standard supervision.

This demonstrates a focus on resolving less complex cases and reducing workload rather than addressing core violations.

In summary, as of June 2025, 72 new applications against Ukraine were submitted to the ECtHR, while more than 800 cases have remained pending for a prolonged period.

Thus, if these applications result in findings of violations, the number of cases requiring execution by the state will increase significantly.

The accumulation of pending cases — most of which are repetitive — indicates that structural problems in Ukraine remain unresolved.

Just satisfaction payments

The financial aspect of ECtHR judgment execution is equally important, particularly regarding payment of just satisfaction to applicants.

In 2024, compensation was fully paid in 126 cases; however, in most instances, payments were delayed by more than six months, which constitutes an additional indicator of non-compliance or delay in execution.

According to the 18th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2024), covering 2023–2024, Ukraine remains among the leaders in the total amount of just satisfaction awarded. In 2023, the total payable amount was EUR 2,166,105; in 2024, it increased to EUR 2,673,680.

By comparison, Poland was required to pay EUR 1,463,344 in 2024, and Romania EUR 1,434,355. Even countries with larger populations, such as Türkiye, exceed Ukraine mainly due to exceptional cases (EUR 8,028,888 in 2024).

These figures reflect the scale of human rights issues in Ukraine regularly identified by the ECtHR.

It is also important to highlight the main groups of cases supervised in 2024. The Committee of Ministers examined nine groups, including:

• violations concerning judicial independence and impartiality, and unfair disciplinary proceedings against judges;
• multiple violations related to the dispersal of the 2013–2014 Maidan protests and lack of effective investigation;
• unlawful arrests and excessive pre-trial detention;
• inadequate conditions of detention in remand centres, police stations, and prisons, and lack of effective remedies;
• ill-treatment and torture by police and ineffective investigations;
• non-enforcement of domestic court judgments.

These cases are often systemic, involving dozens or hundreds of applicants, demonstrating deep structural problems in the legal system.

The most common violations found by the ECtHR in cases against Ukraine include:

• inadequate conditions of detention (Article 3 of the Convention);
• non-enforcement of domestic judgments (Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);
• unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 5);
• ineffective investigations (Articles 2 and 3);
• violation of the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8).

These systemic violations generate long-term negative statistics, resulting in financial consequences for the state budget and undermining trust in the judiciary and executive authorities.

Problems identified by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

The key unresolved issues recurring year after year include: failure to enforce domestic judgments; excessive length of judicial proceedings; ineffective investigations into torture, disappearances, and discrimination; lack of effective legal remedies; and restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

The above demonstrates that Ukraine systematically fails to execute a significant number of ECtHR judgments, particularly in key areas. Despite progress in certain directions, the 2022–2024 data shows increasing caseload pressure and persistence of systemic issues.

This situation inevitably affects legal practice in Ukraine. Non-execution of ECtHR judgments deprives national courts of the ability to properly substantiate decisions and creates a perception that such judgments are not mandatory in similar cases.

This, in turn, limits litigants’ ability to fully rely on ECtHR case-law as a source of law, as courts are aware of the absence of real legal consequences for ignoring it. Therefore, the impact of ECtHR judgments on Ukrainian legal practice remains an open question.

Factors affecting non-execution of ECtHR judgments

The main factors contributing to non-compliance with obligations under the Convention include:

• lack of budgetary allocation in the State Budget of Ukraine for timely execution of ECtHR judgments, particularly payment of just satisfaction;
• absence of adequate procedural mechanisms to enforce payment obligations against the State, both domestically and through effective international procedures;
• limited effectiveness of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which lacks coercive tools to enforce compliance at the national level;
• absence of legal liability for non-execution of ECtHR judgments, given that the debtor is the State and there are no mechanisms for personal accountability of public officials.

These circumstances create a systemic problem that undermines the authority of the international human rights protection system and calls into question the real nature of the State’s commitments under Council of Europe standards.

Finally, it is worth referring to the ECtHR’s legal findings in landmark cases such as Burmych and Others v. Ukraine(2017) and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (2009), where the Court stated that:
“the State must ensure effective mechanisms for the enforcement of domestic judgments, as otherwise the guarantees under the Convention would lose their meaning.”

Recent ECtHR judgments clearly demonstrate that meaningful progress requires a comprehensive approach combining deep structural reforms with effective oversight of their implementation. Only in this way can further human rights violations be prevented and respect for the rule of law be strengthened.