Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on the case of Babkinis v. Ukraine, concerning an employee of the Environmental Inspectorate who was denied back pay for the period when she couldn’t work due to hostilities in Luhansk region in 2014. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to insufficient reasoning in domestic courts’ decisions. The applicant was awarded EUR 2,100 in non-pecuniary damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case centered on the interpretation of Ukraine’s Interim Order governing public institutions affected by hostilities in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
2. The Court identified that the Interim Order distinguished between two periods:
– Period when institution was in non-government-controlled territory (wages to be paid in full)
– Period after transfer to government-controlled territory (wages paid if institution operational)
3. The Court found that domestic courts failed to:
– Explain why they applied provisions about post-transfer period instead of pre-transfer period
– Justify using non-binding ministerial letters over specific government Resolution
4. The Court determined it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Most important provisions for use:
1. The decision establishes that courts must properly explain their reasoning when choosing between different legal provisions, especially when specific regulations exist for particular situations.
2. The Court emphasized that binding legal acts (Resolution) should take precedence over non-binding administrative letters when making judicial decisions.
3. The judgment clarifies that in cases of forced relocation due to hostilities, specific regulations about payment during such periods should be properly considered and applied.
4. The decision provides guidance on how to interpret regulations concerning payment of wages during force majeure situations in conflict zones.
