Review of ECHR decisions for 13/12/2024

CASE OF RIBÁR v. SLOVAKIA

CASE OF HASMIK KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA

This is a significant ECHR decision concerning domestic violence in Armenia. The key aspects are: Essence of the decision:
The Court found Armenia violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) due to its failure to protect a domestic violence victim and provide adequate legal remedies. The case involved a woman who suffered severe physical abuse from her common-law spouse, with authorities failing to protect her from further violence during criminal proceedings and the perpetrator ultimately avoiding punishment through amnesty. Main provisions:
1. The Court established that Article 3 imposes a positive obligation on states to enable victims of domestic violence to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage from perpetrators.
2. The Court found Armenia’s legal framework at the time inadequate for protecting domestic violence victims, as it lacked specific domestic violence provisions and protective measures.
3. The Court criticized the domestic courts’ formalistic approach in reclassifying the crime to a lesser offense and applying amnesty, effectively removing any deterrent effect. Key implications:
1. States must provide comprehensive legal protection for domestic violence victims, including specific criminal provisions and protective measures.
2. Victims must have access to compensation for non-pecuniary damage from perpetrators.
3. Amnesty should not be applied in cases of serious domestic violence.
4. Courts must consider the full context of domestic violence when handling such cases.

CASE OF ADAMČO v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

The decision concerns three main issues related to the treatment of a prisoner in Slovakia: 1. The systematic practice of thorough strip searches (TSS) of the prisoner, which the Court found to be degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the searches were carried out routinely without convincing security needs and despite other security measures being in place. 2. The inspection of the prisoner’s documents during consultations with his lawyers, which the Court found violated Article 8 (right to privacy and correspondence). The Court noted there was no reasonable cause to believe the documents contained unlawful elements and appropriate safeguards were lacking. 3. The use of special restraining devices during a court hearing break, which the Court found did not reach the threshold of Article 3 violation. Key provisions of the decision include:

Strip searches must be based on individual risk assessment and convincing security needs
Privileged communications between lawyers and prisoners require special protection and can only be inspected with reasonable cause
The systematic nature and frequency of searches without proper justification can amount to degrading treatment
Prison authorities must provide appropriate safeguards when inspecting prisoner documents

The Court awarded the applicant €20,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,500 for costs and expenses.

CASE OF KOVÁCS AND KREMICZKY v. HUNGARY

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Kovács and Kremiczky v. Hungary concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. The Court found that Hungary violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) as the proceedings in both cases have been ongoing for more than 31 years and 9 months.The decision follows a simple structure: after establishing procedural details, the Court examines the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the unreasonable length of civil proceedings. The Court refers to its established case-law, particularly the Gazsó v. Hungary case, where similar violations were found.The key provisions of the decision are:

The Court reaffirms its criteria for assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length: complexity of the case, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for applicants
The Court finds the length of proceedings excessive and in breach of the ‘reasonable time’ requirement
The Court awards each applicant EUR 4,550 in just satisfaction for damages and expenses
The respondent State must pay the awarded amounts within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment

CASE OF ODESKA BUTERBRODNA KOMPANIYA, TOV v. UKRAINE

The case concerns the invalidation of a Ukrainian company’s title to a property (café) in Odesa, which was built without proper authorization on municipal land. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).The Court established that while the café was an unauthorized construction built on municipal land without proper permits, the applicant company had acquired it legally and in good faith. The company’s title was registered by authorities and it owned the café for at least two years before the prosecutor challenged its ownership.Key provisions of the decision:

The Court recognized that the café constituted the applicant company’s ‘possession’ despite its unauthorized status, as the company acquired it legally and in good faith
The interference with property rights was found disproportionate, as the authorities failed to provide compensation or other appropriate reparation to the bona fide holder
The Court emphasized that the risk of mistakes made by state authorities must be borne by the state itself, not by individuals acting in good faith
The Court awarded the company €3,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €400 in costs and expenses, while reserving the question of pecuniary damage for further consideration

The decision establishes important principles regarding protection of property rights of bona fide purchasers, even in cases where the original construction was unauthorized. It emphasizes that state authorities cannot correct their past mistakes at the expense of individuals or companies who acted in good faith when acquiring property.

CASE OF SAPITASH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment concerning three Ukrainian citizens who complained about disproportionate sanctions in customs cases. The applicants were fined and had their undeclared cash confiscated at Ukrainian border crossings for exceeding permitted limits without declaration.The Court found that there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in all three cases. The key issue was the disproportionate nature of the sanctions, which included both the confiscation of all excess cash and additional fines. The Court maintained its position established in previous similar cases (Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine, Sadocha v. Ukraine).The main provisions of the judgment include:

The Court found that imposing both confiscation and fines constituted a disproportionate burden on the applicants
The finding of a violation was considered sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage
For pecuniary damage, the Court awarded compensation to two applicants (8,600 EUR and 8,053 EUR respectively)
The Court emphasized that finding a violation does not mean the applicants should not bear any responsibility for failing to declare cash

The judgment is particularly significant as it reinforces the Court’s position on the proportionality of customs sanctions in Ukraine. It establishes that while states have the right to control the movement of currency across borders, the sanctions imposed must not be disproportionate to the offense committed.

CASE OF GOSHOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Goshovskyy and Others v. Ukraine, which consolidated 10 different applications concerning excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and lack of effective remedies for this issue.The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in all cases. The proceedings in question lasted between 5 and nearly 10 years, which the Court found to be excessive and incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.The Court assessed the cases based on established criteria including the complexity of cases, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Following its previous case-law (particularly Karnaushenko v. Ukraine), the Court found no justification for such lengthy proceedings.

Key provisions:

The Court joined all 10 applications due to their similar subject matter
The Court awarded compensation ranging from 1,200 to 3,600 euros to different applicants
The compensation must be paid within three months and converted into Ukrainian currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement
Additional complaints under Article 8 in application no. 16082/17 were declared inadmissible

CASE OF MAHO v. ALBANIA

CASE OF MĂLĂEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

The case of Mălăel and Others v. Romania concerns complaints from six applicants about inadequate conditions of their detention in various Romanian prisons. The applicants claimed violations of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to poor prison conditions. The Court found violations of Article 3 in all cases and awarded compensation to the applicants.The decision addresses several key aspects:

The Court examined the effectiveness of domestic remedies in Romania, particularly the tort action introduced after January 13, 2021, for complaints about detention conditions
The Court analyzed specific periods of detention for each applicant, considering factors such as living space, hygiene conditions, and other material aspects of detention
The decision references the principles established in Muršić v. Croatia regarding prison overcrowding and the minimum required living space

The most significant provisions of the decision include:

Confirmation that a tort action based on Articles 1349 and 1357 of the Romanian Civil Code represents an effective remedy since January 13, 2021, for individuals no longer held in inadequate conditions
Recognition that serious lack of space in prison cells, especially when combined with other poor conditions, can constitute a violation of Article 3
Award of compensation ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage
Establishment of a three-month deadline for the Romanian state to pay the awarded compensations

CASE OF KIEŁB v. POLAND

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on the case of Kiełb v. Poland concerning excessive length of administrative proceedings and lack of effective remedy. The Court found that Poland violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as the administrative proceedings lasted for more than 18 years and 2 months, which was deemed unreasonable. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 11,700 in damages. The decision follows a clear structure addressing three main aspects: the admissibility of the case, the merits of the complaint regarding the length of proceedings, and the application of Article 41 concerning just satisfaction. The Court dismissed Poland’s preliminary objection about non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, confirming that the applicant had sufficiently utilized available remedies under the Code of Administrative Procedure. Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court’s confirmation that the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention
The assessment of reasonable time requirement based on case complexity, conduct of parties, and stakes for the applicant
The finding that the length of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement
The determination that Poland failed to provide an effective remedy for complaints about lengthy proceedings
The award of monetary compensation to be paid within three months, with interest applicable in case of default

CASE OF NYCHYPORENKO AND DEMIDOVA v. UKRAINE

The case concerns complaints by two Ukrainian citizens, Kateryna Nychyporenko and Svitlana Demidova, regarding ineffective investigations into cases of ill-treatment inflicted by private individuals. Both applicants suffered physical injuries from assaults by their neighbors, and both cases demonstrated significant failures in the investigation and judicial processes.The Court found violations of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) in its procedural aspect, specifically regarding the State’s obligation to conduct effective investigations. In both cases, the authorities failed to conduct prompt and thorough examinations of the incidents and bring those responsible to account in a timely manner.Key violations identified by the Court include:

Failure to secure the applicants’ right to participate effectively in the investigations
Failure to take necessary investigative steps
Multiple groundless decisions to close or suspend cases
Protracted character of investigations and court proceedings
Repeated refusals to institute criminal proceedings without proper justification

The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage: €3,900 to Nychyporenko and €3,000 to Demidova. In Nychyporenko’s case, the Court also found a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) due to deficient reasoning in civil court decisions. The judgment emphasizes that domestic judicial authorities must not let physical or psychological suffering go unpunished to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.

CASE OF G.B.M. v. AUSTRIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case G.B.M. v. Austria concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. The Court found that Austria violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to unreasonably long civil proceedings that lasted more than 10 years. The applicant was awarded 8,000 euros in compensation. The Court’s decision is structured around three main elements: the facts of the case, the legal assessment under Article 6 § 1, and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The Court referred to its established case-law, particularly the Rambauske v. Austria and Holzinger v. Austria cases, where similar violations were found. The key provisions of this decision include:

The Court’s confirmation that the length of proceedings must be assessed based on the case’s complexity, the conduct of both parties, and what was at stake for the applicant
The finding that the total length of proceedings (more than 10 years and 2 months for three levels of jurisdiction) was excessive and violated the ‘reasonable time’ requirement
The obligation of Austria to pay compensation within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points

CASE OF KONONENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The Court examined ten applications jointly due to their similar subject matter. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning poor detention conditions in Ukrainian facilities, particularly in the Dnipro Detention Facility. The main issues included overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor sanitation, insufficient physical exercise, and other substandard conditions. The Court’s key findings include:

Serious lack of space in prison cells (ranging from 1.1 to 3.6 square meters per inmate)
Multiple deficiencies in physical conditions including poor ventilation, inadequate hygiene facilities, and insufficient access to basic necessities
Absence of effective domestic remedies for complaints about detention conditions
Additional violations related to excessive length of pre-trial detention and inadequate judicial review procedures

The Court awarded compensation ranging from 1,400 to 9,800 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage, plus additional amounts for costs and expenses. The judgment follows the Court’s established case-law, particularly referencing the precedents set in Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine cases.

CASE OF LUTSAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment concerning 11 applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The case primarily deals with violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.The Court found that all applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions in the Vinnytsia Detention Facility. The main issues included overcrowding (with personal space ranging from 2.5 to 4.7 square meters per inmate), lack of fresh air, inadequate hygiene facilities, lack of privacy for toilets, and various other deficiencies in living conditions.The Court’s decision is based on its well-established case law, particularly referencing the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine. The Court found that the Ukrainian government failed to provide evidence contradicting the applicants’ complaints about detention conditions.Key provisions of the decision include:

Recognition of violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention
Award of compensation ranging from 1,700 to 9,800 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage
Requirement for Ukraine to pay the awarded amounts within three months

The Court particularly emphasized that a serious lack of space in prison cells is a crucial factor in determining whether detention conditions are ‘degrading’ under Article 3, either alone or in combination with other deficiencies. The judgment also highlights the systematic nature of these violations in Ukrainian detention facilities and the absence of effective domestic remedies for such complaints.

CASE OF DIDYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Didyk and Others v. Ukraine, which consolidated nine applications concerning inadequate detention conditions in Ukrainian detention facilities, particularly in the Zhytomyr Detention Facility.The Court found violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention regarding all applicants. The violations stemmed from poor detention conditions, including severe overcrowding with only 2.5-3.8 square meters per inmate, lack of privacy, poor sanitation, and insufficient access to basic facilities.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court reaffirmed that serious lack of space in prison cells is a crucial factor in determining whether detention conditions are ‘degrading’ under Article 3
The Ukrainian government failed to provide evidence showing cell floor plans and actual number of inmates during specific periods
The Court awarded compensation ranging from 5,000 to 7,500 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage
The judgment referenced previous cases (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found

The most significant aspects of this decision are:

The systematic nature of poor detention conditions in Ukrainian facilities
The Court’s emphasis on the minimum space requirement per detainee
The lack of effective domestic remedies for complaints about detention conditions
The establishment of specific compensation amounts for such violations

CASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Bondarenko and Others v. Ukraine, concerning seven applications filed by Ukrainian citizens regarding inadequate conditions of detention in the Kryvyi Rih Detention Facility and the lack of effective remedies to address these issues. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and awarded compensation ranging from 4,000 to 7,500 euros to the applicants.The decision addresses several key aspects:

The Court examined complaints about poor detention conditions, including overcrowding (3-3.9 square meters per inmate), lack of fresh air, inadequate hygiene facilities, and other substandard conditions.
The Court found that the Ukrainian government failed to provide evidence contradicting the applicants’ claims about inadequate detention conditions.
The judgment references previous cases (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found, establishing a consistent precedent.

The most significant provisions of the decision include:

The Court’s confirmation that serious lack of space in prison cells can alone constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The establishment that Ukraine lacks effective remedies for complaints about detention conditions.
The Court’s detailed assessment of specific violations in each case, including precise measurements of cell space and comprehensive lists of inadequate conditions.
The determination of monetary compensation based on the duration and severity of inadequate detention conditions.

CASE OF SHYNKARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

This judgment concerns seven applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in all cases.The Court examined complaints from seven applicants who were detained in the Zhytomyr Detention Facility under poor conditions. The main issues included overcrowding (2.5-3.2 m² per person), lack of fresh air, passive smoking, insect/rodent infestation, inadequate hygiene facilities, insufficient natural light, and poor quality of food and bedding. Some applicants also complained about excessive length of criminal proceedings.The Court’s main findings include:

The conditions of detention were inadequate and violated Article 3 of the Convention
The applicants had no effective remedy regarding these complaints, violating Article 13
Additional violations were found regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings
The Court awarded compensation ranging from 6,700 to 9,800 euros per applicant

The judgment references previous cases (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found. The Court maintained its established position that serious lack of space in prison cells, especially when combined with other shortcomings, constitutes degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention.

CASE OF RASKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment concerning nine applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The case involves multiple applicants who were detained in various Ukrainian detention facilities, including pre-trial detention centers in Kharkiv and Kropyvnytskyy, and the Zamkova Detention Facility.The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning poor detention conditions and the absence of effective remedies. The specific violations included overcrowding (with personal space ranging from 2.4 to 3.7 square meters per inmate), inadequate temperature, poor sanitation, insufficient natural light, restricted access to showers and warm water, poor quality of food, and other substandard conditions.The Court’s decision is based on well-established case-law, particularly referencing the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine. The Court noted that the Ukrainian government failed to provide evidence contradicting the applicants’ claims about poor detention conditions.Key provisions of the judgment include:

Recognition of systematic problems in Ukrainian detention facilities regarding living conditions
Confirmation that the lack of personal space, combined with other deficiencies, constitutes degrading treatment under Article 3
Award of compensation ranging from 5,800 to 9,800 euros per applicant
Additional findings of violations regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings for some applicants

The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation to all applicants within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment. The amounts awarded vary depending on the duration and severity of the violations experienced by each applicant.

CASE OF DYUMIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The Court joined six applications due to their similar subject matter, examining complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.The Court found violations regarding poor detention conditions in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, where applicants were held in overcrowded cells (2-3.5 m² per person) with various deficiencies including poor sanitation, inadequate temperature, insufficient natural light, and lack of proper food and medical care.The main provisions of the judgment include:

Confirmation of violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention due to inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies
Recognition of additional violations under well-established case-law, including excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings
Award of compensation ranging from 1,700 to 9,800 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage

Key aspects for implementation:

The judgment establishes specific space requirements and minimum standards for detention conditions
It reinforces the requirement for effective domestic remedies regarding detention conditions
The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation within three months, with interest applicable after that period
The decision references previous cases (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) as established precedents

CASE OF SEMENENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment concerning five applications against Ukraine regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in all cases.The Court examined five separate cases jointly due to their similar subject matter. The proceedings in these cases lasted from approximately 6 to 15 years, which the Court found to be excessive and incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement. The longest proceeding was in the case of Semenenko, lasting more than 15 years, while the shortest was Kuznetsov’s case, lasting about 6 years.The Court assessed the reasonableness of the proceedings’ length based on established criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Following its previous case-law, particularly the Nechay v. Ukraine case, the Court found no justification for such lengthy proceedings.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court’s finding that Ukraine violated both Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
The award of compensation ranging from 500 to 6,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage
The requirement for Ukraine to pay the awarded amounts within three months
The provision for interest payment in case of delayed settlement at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points

CASE OF KOVÁCS AND KREMICZKY v. HUNGARY

The Court reaffirms its criteria for assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length: complexity of the case, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for applicants
The Court finds the length of proceedings excessive and in breach of the ‘reasonable time’ requirement
The Court awards each applicant EUR 4,550 in just satisfaction for damages and expenses
The respondent State must pay the awarded amounts within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment