CASE OF DENYSYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Denysyuk and Others v. Ukraine:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– The case concerns violations of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life and correspondence) regarding covert surveillance measures applied to four Ukrainian nationals. The Court found that the interference with the applicants’ rights was not “in accordance with law” due to insufficient safeguards in the domestic legal framework, particularly regarding protection of lawyer-client communications and lack of effective oversight. The Court also found that Ukraine failed to provide effective remedies for the applicants to challenge the surveillance measures and failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 by refusing to provide requested documents to the Court.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case combines four applications concerning covert surveillance measures (audio/video monitoring and phone tapping)
– The Court examined three main aspects:
* Whether the surveillance authorization procedure provided adequate safeguards
* Whether implementation of surveillance had sufficient protections, especially for lawyer-client communications
* Whether effective post-surveillance remedies were available
– Key findings:
* Lack of access to judicial authorization decisions prevented assessment of their lawfulness
* Insufficient safeguards for identifying and handling intercepted privileged communications
* No independent oversight authority
* No effective remedies to challenge surveillance measures
* Structural deficiencies in protecting lawyer-client communications
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The judgment establishes clear requirements for domestic legal frameworks regarding covert surveillance:
* Need for detailed rules on identifying and handling privileged communications
* Requirement for independent oversight authority
* Necessity of effective post-surveillance remedies
* Obligation to provide access to surveillance authorization documents unless compelling reasons exist
* Protection of lawyer-client communications requires specific procedural safeguards
– The Court emphasized that lawyers have standing to challenge surveillance frameworks even without proving specific interception of their communications
– The judgment clarifies that state security classification cannot justify refusing to provide documents requested by the Court under Article 38
The decision is particularly significant for Ukraine as it identifies systemic problems in the legal framework for covert surveillance and sets clear requirements for reform.
CASE OF ISHKHANYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Ishkhanyan v. Armenia:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– The case concerns the unlawful arrest and detention of a participant in a peaceful protest in Yerevan against electricity price increases. The Court found that the applicant’s arrest after the dispersal of a sit-in demonstration was conducted en masse without individual assessment of criminality and without reasonable suspicion, violating Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The Court determined that being under exclusive police control for over seven hours constituted deprivation of liberty, and the placement in police custody did not follow prescribed legal procedures as no proper arrest record was drawn up.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court first examined whether the applicant was actually deprived of liberty, analyzing both objective elements (confinement in restricted space) and subjective elements (lack of valid consent)
– The Court established that the period of deprivation of liberty lasted from 6 AM until 1:30 PM on June 23, 2015
– The Court assessed whether the deprivation of liberty was lawful under Article 5 § 1(b) and (c)
– The Court found that the arrest was not justified under Article 5 § 1(b) as there was no longer any obligation the applicant could be said to have disobeyed
– The Court determined that while the arrest was effected under Article 5 § 1(c), it lacked reasonable suspicion and proper documentation
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirmed that mass arrests without individualized assessment of criminality violate Article 5 § 1
– The decision establishes that being under exclusive police control, even without formal arrest, constitutes deprivation of liberty if the person cannot leave freely
– The Court emphasized that proper documentation of arrest is essential for its lawfulness – lack of proper arrest records makes detention unlawful
– The decision confirms that questioning arrested persons as witnesses shortly after arrest without explanation undermines the claimed reasonable suspicion for arrest
– The Court awarded €4,600 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 for legal costs
CASE OF MACHARIK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Macharik v. Czech Republic:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the criminal conviction of Ms. Macharik based mainly on the content of her email communications obtained by police through a judicial order requiring a service provider to transfer content from a third party’s mailbox. The Court found that obtaining and using these emails violated Article 8 (right to privacy and correspondence) because the legal framework lacked clarity and consistency, making the interference not “in accordance with law”. However, the Court found no violation of Article 6 (right to fair trial) as the overall fairness of proceedings was not compromised despite using evidence obtained in violation of Article 8.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two main issues: violation of privacy rights (Article 8) and fairness of trial (Article 6)
– On Article 8, the Court focused on whether obtaining email content was properly based in domestic law
– The Court found that domestic courts used inconsistent legal bases (Articles 88, 88a and 158d of Criminal Procedure Code)
– On Article 6, the Court examined whether using unlawfully obtained evidence made the trial unfair
– The Court concluded that despite Article 8 violation, trial fairness was maintained as evidence was reliable and defense rights respected
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that email communications, including professional ones, fall under protected correspondence
– Even if emails are forwarded to third parties, the original sender retains reasonable expectation of privacy
– When obtaining communications content, law must be clear about circumstances and conditions
– Unlawfully obtained evidence doesn’t automatically make trial unfair if:
* Police acted in good faith
* Evidence is reliable and authentic
* Defense had opportunity to challenge evidence
* Defense rights were respected throughout proceedings
The decision is significant for setting standards on privacy protection in digital communications and clarifying relationship between privacy violations and trial fairness.
CASE OF L.D. v. POLAND
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in L.D. v. Poland:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns Poland’s failure to ensure effective enforcement of a mother’s custody and contact rights with her son after the father refused to return the child. The Court found that Polish authorities did not take adequate and timely steps to enforce court orders regarding child custody and visitation, allowing prolonged delays in proceedings and failing to effectively address the father’s non-compliance. The Court concluded that these shortcomings ultimately led to a complete breakdown of the mother-child relationship, constituting a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for family life).
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision follows the standard ECHR structure:
– Facts of the case: Details the chronology of events from 2011 when the father refused to return the child
– Relevant legal framework: Outlines both domestic Polish law and international standards
– Court’s assessment: Analyzes the state’s positive obligations under Article 8
– Conclusion: Finds violation and awards damages
Key changes/provisions compared to previous decisions:
– Emphasizes the importance of holistic approach to childcare cases rather than fragmenting into separate proceedings
– Highlights the need for digital solutions in court proceedings to prevent delays
– Stresses the importance of early intervention in parental alienation cases
3. Most important provisions for practical use:
a) State’s positive obligations:
– Authorities must take proactive steps to enforce custody and contact rights
– Lack of cooperation between parents imposes additional obligation on authorities to reconcile conflicting interests
– Courts must act with special diligence when contact between parent and child is restricted
b) Procedural requirements:
– Courts should avoid fragmenting childcare cases into separate proceedings
– Need for prompt judicial intervention in cases of interrupted parent-child contact
– Importance of setting specific deadlines and enforcement mechanisms for court orders
c) Practical measures:
– Courts should consider mediation and conflict resolution early in proceedings
– Need for specific, time-bound orders regarding parental therapy or training
– Importance of preparatory steps before enforcing return orders in alienation cases
d) Best interests of the child:
– Maintaining contact with both parents is generally in child’s best interest
– Coercive measures against children should be avoided
– Courts must balance immediate and long-term interests of the child
The decision provides important practical guidance for handling complex custody and contact rights cases, particularly where there is risk of parental alienation or non-compliance with court orders.
CASE OF P. v. POLAND
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in P. v. Poland:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns a secondary school teacher in Poland who was dismissed for running an internet blog featuring sexually explicit content and bringing an unauthorized person to school trips. The Court found that the dismissal violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) as the authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the dismissal and the sanction was disproportionate. The Court emphasized that the teacher’s personal blogging activity did not threaten the protection of morals of minors in a manner justifying dismissal.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court examined the case primarily under Article 10 (freedom of expression)
– The Court found complaints under Article 8 (privacy) inadmissible
– The Court analyzed whether the interference with freedom of expression was:
* Prescribed by law (yes)
* Pursued legitimate aim (Court did not take definitive stance)
* Necessary in democratic society (no)
– The Court awarded €2,600 in non-pecuniary damages
– Three judges issued a dissenting opinion
3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court established that teachers’ special duties and responsibilities apply to some extent to their activities outside school
– However, for non-religious school teachers, there cannot be a heightened duty of loyalty barring expression of sexuality in legal adult content
– The Court emphasized that restrictions on expression must be based on specific analysis of content, not general statements about morality
– Important distinction was made between actively transmitting content to students versus students seeking out restricted adult content
– The Court stressed that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate and take into account factors like lack of prior sanctions
– The decision includes important analysis of balancing teachers’ freedom of expression with protection of students’ morals
The decision provides important guidance on limits of restricting teachers’ private expression and standards for imposing disciplinary sanctions in educational context.
CASE OF BILYY v. UKRAINE
1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Bilyy v. Ukraine concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by police convoy officers in 2016, when he sustained a head injury while consulting case files on court premises. The Court found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in both its procedural and substantive aspects, as the state failed to provide a plausible explanation for the applicant’s injuries and conducted an ineffective investigation.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision outlines the factual background of the incident, presents conflicting accounts from the applicant and police officers, and details the subsequent investigation process. The Court examined two main aspects:
– The substantive violation of Article 3 due to the unexplained head injury sustained while under police control
– The procedural violation due to ineffective investigation, characterized by:
* Failure to grant the applicant victim status
* Three identical decisions to discontinue investigation
* Lack of proper verification of the convoy officers’ version of events
* Insufficient investigative measures
3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court established that when a person sustains injuries while under police control, the State bears responsibility for providing a plausible explanation
– The decision reinforces the standard that a credible allegation of ill-treatment triggers the state’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation
– The Court awarded €15,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,000 for costs and expenses
– The decision highlights specific investigative deficiencies that make an investigation ineffective: relying solely on police accounts, failing to grant victim status, and making repeated identical decisions despite court criticism
CASE OF BONA v. POLAND
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Bona v. Poland:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns excessive length of civil proceedings in Poland and lack of effective remedy for such violations. The Court found that Poland violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The proceedings in question lasted for 8 years, 8 months, and 11 days, which the Court deemed excessive and unreasonable.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court rejected Poland’s request to strike out the application based on a unilateral declaration
2. The Court found the application admissible and established violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13
3. The Court referenced its previous case law, particularly Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, where similar violations were found
4. The decision includes specific monetary compensation:
– EUR 250 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
– Additional amount for costs and expenses
– Interest at the rate of ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed its criteria for assessing reasonable time of proceedings:
– Complexity of the case
– Conduct of the applicant
– Conduct of relevant authorities
– What was at stake for the applicant
2. The Court established that Poland still lacks an effective remedy for complaints about excessive length of proceedings
3. The judgment reinforces the Court’s position that member states must ensure civil proceedings are conducted within reasonable time frames and provide effective remedies for violations of this right
CASE OF INDYLO v. UKRAINE
1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine violated Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention regarding the death of a young man in police custody in 2010. The Court determined that Ukraine failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death and ill-treatment of the victim, and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries and death that occurred while he was in police custody. The Court awarded €40,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,000 for costs and expenses to the victim’s parents.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision is structured around examining both procedural and substantive aspects of Articles 2 and 3 violations:
– The Court found the investigation was ineffective due to significant delays (over 8.5 years), failure to establish crucial circumstances of death, and inadequate investigative measures
– The Court emphasized the State’s duty to protect persons in custody and provide plausible explanations for injuries sustained while in custody
– The decision established that the burden of proof rests with authorities to explain injuries and death occurring during detention
– The Court rejected the government’s non-exhaustion of domestic remedies objection due to the investigation’s ineffectiveness
3. Key provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirmed that investigations must be prompt and expeditious to maintain public confidence
– The decision emphasizes that authorities have a particularly stringent obligation to account for the treatment of individuals who die in custody
– The Court established that strong presumptions of fact arise when events occur within the exclusive knowledge of authorities during custody
– The failure to provide explanations for injuries and death in custody indicates a failure of the State to discharge its burden of proof
– The Court confirmed that investigation effectiveness is measured by adequacy of investigative measures, promptness, family involvement, and independence
CASE OF IVIĆ v. SERBIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECtHR decision in Ivić v. Serbia:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns the non-enforcement of a domestic court decision in Serbia against a socially/State-owned company. The European Court of Human Rights found that Serbia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by failing to enforce a domestic judgment in favor of Dragica Ivić. The Court ordered Serbia to ensure the enforcement of the pending domestic decision within three months and to pay compensation to the applicant.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that execution of court judgments must be considered an integral part of a “hearing” under Article 6.
2. The decision established that the unenforced domestic judgment constitutes “possessions” within Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
3. Following its previous case law (R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia), the Court found that Serbian authorities failed to deploy all necessary efforts to enforce the domestic decision fully and in due time.
4. The Court ordered Serbia to:
– Ensure enforcement of the pending domestic decision within three months
– Pay 1,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage
– Pay 250 euros for costs and expenses
Key Important Provisions:
1. The judgment reinforces the principle that state authorities must take all necessary measures to enforce domestic court decisions, particularly those against state-owned companies.
2. The Court established a specific three-month deadline for the enforcement of the domestic decision.
3. The decision confirms that unenforced judgments qualify as “possessions” under the Convention, providing additional protection for judgment creditors.
4. The case establishes clear monetary compensation standards for similar cases of non-enforcement of domestic decisions in Serbia.
CASE OF MARTYROSYAN v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on the case Martyrosyan v. Ukraine concerning excessive pre-trial detention length. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention by keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention for 3 years, 5 months, and 13 days without sufficient justification. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,200 in damages and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.
Structure and main provisions:
The decision follows the standard ECHR judgment structure, addressing the procedure, facts, law, and remedies. The Court based its reasoning on established case law, particularly referencing Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine as leading cases. The main violation found was the excessive length of pre-trial detention, with the Court identifying specific defects in the Ukrainian courts’ approach, including:
– Fragility of the reasons for continued detention
– Failure to consider alternative measures of restraint
– Repetitive and weak reasoning as the case progressed
– Lack of diligence in conducting proceedings
Key provisions for use:
1. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be justified with substantial reasons throughout its duration
2. Courts must actively consider alternative measures to detention
3. The reasoning for continued detention must evolve with the case progression and cannot be repetitive
4. The authorities must conduct proceedings with due diligence to avoid excessive detention periods
5. The specific time period (3 years, 5 months, 13 days) serves as a reference point for what constitutes excessive pre-trial detention in similar cases
CASE OF NOVOSEL v. MONTENEGRO
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Novosel v. Montenegro:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns a complaint about the excessive length of constitutional proceedings in Montenegro. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) in respect of one applicant, Milodarka Novosel, while declaring the applications of three other applicants (Predrag, Zdravko, and Vladimir Novosel) inadmissible. The Court awarded Milodarka Novosel compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court divided its analysis into two parts:
– Assessment of the victim status of three applicants (Predrag, Zdravko, and Vladimir Novosel)
– Examination of the reasonable time requirement for Milodarka Novosel
2. Key findings:
– Three applicants were not considered victims as they were not parties to the constitutional proceedings
– The length of proceedings (4 years, 2 months, and 13 days) was deemed excessive
– The Court awarded 1,200 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs to Milodarka Novosel
Most Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed 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
2. The Court established that heirs who fail to continue proceedings after the death of the original party cannot be considered victims of excessive length of proceedings
3. The decision reinforces previous case law regarding reasonable time requirements in constitutional proceedings, referring to cases Stakić v. Montenegro and Siništaj v. Montenegro
