CASE OF UZU v. UKRAINE
The case concerns a racially motivated attack on a 16-year-old Ukrainian citizen of Afro-Ukrainian descent in a Kyiv metro station in 2015. A group of around twenty people verbally abused him with racist slurs and subsequently physically assaulted him, resulting in various injuries.The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention due to the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the racist attack. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses.The key elements of the decision include:
- The Court determined that the physical suffering, combined with the victim’s age and racist motives, was serious enough to fall under Article 3 of the Convention
- The investigation was found to be ineffective due to several failures:
- Delayed forensic medical examination that failed to properly document injuries
- Lack of follow-up after identifying one of the perpetrators
- Three-year delay in ordering linguistic examination of racist statements
- Failure to properly investigate racist motives despite evidence
- The Court emphasized the state’s obligation to unmask possible racist motives in such cases and conduct thorough investigations when evidence of racist verbal abuse emerges
The most significant provisions of this decision relate to the Court’s emphasis on the state’s obligation to effectively investigate hate crimes, particularly when involving minors, and the requirement to thoroughly examine potential racist motives when evidence of discriminatory behavior exists.
CASE OF YAKOBSON v. UKRAINE
The case concerns the annulment of property rights and eviction of a Ukrainian family from their house, which they had purchased at a public auction in 2003. The first applicant bought the house for 15,700 UAH at a State-administered auction, but the previous owner’s heir successfully challenged the sale’s legitimacy in 2012.The Court found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) regarding the first applicant and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) regarding all applicants. The key issues were:
- The first applicant was deprived of property rights due to wrongful acts of others, despite being a good faith purchaser
- The compensation awarded (about one-fifth of the market value) was inadequate and partially unpaid
- The burden of correcting third parties’ wrongs was unfairly placed on the applicant
The Court’s main findings were:
- The deprivation of property rights was disproportionate and placed an excessive burden on the first applicant
- The compensation mechanism didn’t account for inflation, market price changes, or other time-sensitive factors
- The eviction violated the right to respect for home of all family members
- The Court awarded €26,000 in total compensation to all applicants jointly
CASE OF AZADLIQ AND JABRAYILZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
The case concerns civil defamation proceedings against the newspaper Azadliq and journalist Ramin Jabrayilzade in Azerbaijan. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) regarding articles published about alleged business malpractice at a shopping center in Baku.The Court analyzed three main aspects of the case:
- The articles’ content about alleged business malpractice was a matter of public interest and contributed to public debate
- The domestic courts failed to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments, and didn’t consider that the journalists were reporting third-party statements
- The journalists had made reasonable attempts to verify the information and acted with due diligence
The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court found that the interference with freedom of expression was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’ as the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons
- The Court awarded €2,000 to the journalist for non-pecuniary damage
- The Court awarded €1,500 jointly to both applicants for costs and expenses
- The Court rejected claims for pecuniary damages due to lack of evidence
CASE OF GAVRYLYAK v. UKRAINE
The case concerns a dispute between a Ukrainian citizen, Ms. Olga Gavrylyak, and her nephew regarding alleged ill-treatment and property rights to a house in the Lviv Region. The applicant claimed she was physically assaulted by her nephew on August 4, 2014, resulting in minor bodily injuries during a dispute over the sale of her house.The Court’s decision focuses on two main aspects: the complaint under Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The Court found the Article 3 complaint inadmissible due to insufficient evidence of the severity of injuries, but upheld the Article 8 complaint regarding the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation.The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 8 of the Convention due to the ineffective investigation by Ukrainian authorities
- The investigation, which began in August 2014, remained pending for almost ten years, with multiple closures and reopenings
- The Court noted that the excessive length of proceedings made any further effective investigation practically impossible
- The domestic courts repeatedly found the investigation incomplete and identified necessary procedural steps that were not taken
The most significant aspects of this decision are:
- It establishes that prolonged investigations without resolution (in this case, nearly 10 years) constitute a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article 8
- The Court emphasizes the State’s responsibility to conduct timely and effective investigations in cases involving private individuals
- The decision highlights the distinction between the severity thresholds required for Article 3 and Article 8 violations in cases of physical assault
CASE OF L.S. v. UKRAINE
The case concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of a 73-year-old Ukrainian woman who was physically assaulted in the context of a family dispute over a flat in Nikopol. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) in its procedural aspect due to ineffective investigation of the incident.The Court established that on May 19, 2014, the applicant suffered fourteen bruises on her head and upper body inflicted by her former daughter-in-law and grandson who attempted to forcefully evict her from the flat. The police initiated a criminal investigation but failed to conduct it effectively over a period of more than ten years.Key findings of the Court include:
- The injuries inflicted on the elderly applicant reached the minimum level of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention
- The investigation was marked by significant delays, including a one-month delay in ordering a medical forensic examination
- Multiple investigators closed the case without taking necessary procedural steps, with their decisions being subsequently quashed
- Critical witnesses were not questioned for years, potentially compromising their ability to recall events
- Despite repeated findings of ineffectiveness by the prosecutor’s office, no effective remedial measures were taken
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 29.58 for postal expenses, plus any applicable taxes.
CASE OF ORLOV v. UKRAINE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Orlov v. Ukraine concerning the ineffective investigation of ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by private individuals in 2009, which resulted in his partial disability. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in its procedural aspect due to the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation.The decision focuses on three main structural elements: the timeline of events and investigation, the procedural failures of national authorities, and the Court’s assessment of the violation. The Court particularly emphasized the two-year delay in opening a criminal case, problems with the verdict delivery, and the ultimate discontinuation of prosecution due to the expiration of the limitation period.The key provisions of the decision include:
- The Court found that the two-year delay in opening a criminal investigation was unjustified
- The failure of the Babushkinskyi District Court to properly deliver and announce the verdict violated procedural rules
- The Court emphasized that effective protection against ill-treatment cannot be achieved when criminal proceedings are discontinued due to time limitations caused by the authorities’ flaws
- The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage
CASE OF E.G. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
The case E.G. and Others v. Hungary concerns the lack of a regulatory framework for legal recognition of gender identity change in Hungary. The European Court of Human Rights examined complaints from 18 Hungarian nationals who sought to change their sex/gender markers in official registers between 2018 and 2019.The Court’s decision addresses three distinct groups of applicants:
- Seven applicants who withdrew their applications or lost contact with their representatives
- Eight applicants whose cases were eventually resolved through domestic procedures in 2022-2023
- Three applicants whose requests were rejected due to regulatory gaps
The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life) for the third group of applicants. The key findings include:
- The Hungarian legal framework lacked clarity regarding required evidence and competent authorities for gender recognition
- The regulatory gaps led to inconsistent administrative practices
- The situation created distressing uncertainty for the applicants regarding their private life and identity recognition
- The framework failed to provide quick, transparent, and accessible procedures for changing registered sex on birth certificates
The Court ordered Hungary to pay €10,000 in non-pecuniary damages to each of the three applicants whose cases were not resolved domestically, plus €2,000 jointly for costs and expenses.
CASE OF SZABÓ v. HUNGARY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning a Hungarian member of Parliament who was fined for his protest actions during a parliamentary vote on amendments to the Labor Code in December 2018. The Court found that Hungary violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) when sanctioning the MP.The decision focuses on three main aspects:
- The applicant’s actions during the parliamentary session (using a whistle, displaying a banner, and allegedly using physical force)
- The fine of approximately 2,800 euros imposed by the Speaker of Parliament
- The procedural aspects of imposing the sanction
The Court’s key findings include:
- The applicant’s protest actions, even if disruptive, fall under the protection of Article 10 of the Convention as they constituted political expression
- The procedure for imposing the sanction lacked adequate safeguards, particularly the right to be heard
- The Immunity Committee’s failure to hold a hearing due to internal disagreements left the applicant without an effective means to challenge the Speaker’s decision
- The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was disproportionate due to lack of procedural safeguards
The Court ordered Hungary to pay the applicant 2,820 euros in pecuniary damages, equivalent to the fine imposed. This decision emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards in parliamentary disciplinary proceedings and the protection of political expression, even when it takes the form of disruptive protest actions.
