The ECHR has published official statistics as of February 28, 2026: Ukraine ranked fourth among Council of Europe member states in terms of the number of applications examined by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). According to the ECHR’s statistics, more than 60% of all cases pending before the Court concern four countries: Turkey (37.6%), the Russian Federation (12.4%), Poland (6.5%), and Ukraine (6%).

As of early 2026, there were 3,350 applications against Ukraine on the ECHR’s docket.

During 2025, the ECHR issued 164 judgments in cases against Ukraine. In 160 of these judgments, the Court found violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a result of which the applicants were awarded compensation.

Of these, the following were established:

• 2 violations—the right to life (Article 2 of the ECHR);
• 10 violations—the right to life and the right to an effective investigation (Article 2 of the ECHR);
• 42 violations—prohibition of torture (Article 3 of the ECHR);
• 11 violations—prohibition of torture and the right to an effective investigation (Article 3 of the ECHR);
• 68 violations—regarding the right to liberty and security of person (Article 5 of the ECHR);
• 34 violations—the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR);
• 58 violations—regarding the length of proceedings and the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR);
• 16 violations—the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR);
• 1 violation—the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 9 of the ECHR);
• 1 violation – the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR);
• 3 violations—the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the ECHR);
• 89 violations – the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the ECHR);
• 21 violations – the right to protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);
• 1 violation—the right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1);
• 5 violations – other articles of the Convention.

These figures indicate systemic violations of the Convention by representatives of state authorities, law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor’s office, and the Ukrainian judicial system.

Applications to the ECHR generally point to deliberate violations of the Convention by public officials, particularly judges. However, there is a legal loophole at the national level: those who have committed such violations remain free from appropriate disciplinary and other legal accountability.

Ukrainian courts often fail to consider the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law, as provided for in Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Enforcement of Judgments and the Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” This situation leads to inconsistent application of the Convention’s provisions and the recurrence of violations similar to those already established by the Court in cases against Ukraine.

Currently, Draft Law No. 15072 of March 11, 2026, has been registered with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, proposing amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges” and certain other legislative acts regarding the enhancement of judges’ accountability and the implementation of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of this draft law is to improve the procedure for holding judges accountable through disciplinary measures and to purge the judicial system of individuals who do not meet professional standards, as well as to reduce the number of violations of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Ukrainian state authorities by ensuring that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is properly taken into account and applied at the national level, eliminating legal loopholes in holding perpetrators legally accountable, and enhancing the effectiveness of the judicial and law enforcement systems to prevent repeated human rights violations.

The Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges” proposes to expand the grounds for ordering a qualification assessment, specifically including a finding by the European Court of Human Rights that a decision rendered by a judge (including a decision to uphold a lower court’s ruling) violates the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights). A serious disciplinary offense or gross neglect of a judge’s duties also includes a judge’s decision (including a decision to uphold a lower court’s ruling) that is found by the European Court of Human Rights to violate the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Law of Ukraine “On the Enforcement of Decisions and the Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights” proposes to stipulate that compensation paid and other expenses incurred on behalf of Ukraine in favor of the claimant are subject to a claim for reimbursement (recourse) from the judges whose decisions formed the basis for the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case against Ukraine, in which a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was found. The amount of the recourse claim shall be determined by the court upon a claim filed on behalf of Ukraine, taking into account the degree of fault and the amount of damage caused.