It’s no secret that Ukraine’s justice system consistently violates the principle of reasonable timeframes for case consideration. At the same time, the available remedies fail to ensure an effective response to such violations — calling into question access to justice itself.

This issue was explored by Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Partners attorney Maksym Husliakov in his article for liga.net, “Reasonable Timeframes Over 1,200 Days: Why a Court Decision Becomes Unattainable.”

The author examines a civil case in the Koziatyn City District Court of Vinnytsia Region, which remained unresolved on the merits for over three years. The case, involving the allocation of a share in joint partial ownership, saw only three hearings over more than 1,200 days, with the next hearing scheduled in another 343 days.

Despite the absence of expert evaluations, appeals, or other objective obstacles, intervals between hearings ranged from several months to over a year. A motion to expedite proceedings was ignored, and a request for the judge’s recusal was dismissed.

Yet the core of the article lies not in this individual case. While preparing a complaint to the High Council of Justice, the author analyzed other cases presided over by the same judge. He discovered at least sixty civil cases with signs of significant delays — lasting from 96 to 1,608 days. In many of them, the next hearings are scheduled for 2026–2027.

According to the attorney, such a pattern points not to coincidence or overload but to a persistent and possibly entrenched practice. This may constitute a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and Articles 189 and 210 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The situation is further complicated by its formal legality: the case remains open, the proceedings are ongoing, and hearings — though spaced by a year — are scheduled. In reality, however, access to justice is effectively blocked. As the author notes, the individual finds themselves trapped in a systemic deadlock: on one hand, unable to obtain a decision, on the other — lacking any effective mechanism to hold the judge accountable for delays.

According to the attorney, this case is a symptom of a broader issue in Ukraine’s local courts. And it requires not just individual complaints but an institutional response. Without that, restoring trust in the judiciary will remain an empty slogan.

The full article is available at the link provided.