CASE OF KHOMENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined five joined applications against Ukraine concerning inadequate detention conditions in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding poor detention conditions and lack of effective remedies. The applicants were awarded compensation ranging from 4,700 to 9,800 euros for damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined five separate applications due to similar subject matter.
2. The main violations concerned:
– Inadequate conditions of detention (Article 3)
– Lack of effective remedies (Article 13)
– Additional violations in some cases regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention
3. The Court based its decision on established case-law, particularly referencing Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine cases.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court emphasized that serious lack of space in prison cells (2.5-3.65 m² per inmate in these cases) is a crucial factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading.”
2. Specific violations included:
– Overcrowding
– Poor sanitary conditions
– Lack of fresh air
– Poor quality of food and water
– Insufficient physical exercise opportunities
3. The Court established that Ukraine failed to provide adequate evidence contradicting the applicants’ complaints about detention conditions.
4. The decision reinforces the requirement for states to maintain minimum standards in detention facilities and provide effective remedies for violations.
CASE OF ONISHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on the case of Onishchenko v. Ukraine concerning excessively long civil proceedings in Ukrainian courts. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to unreasonably long civil proceedings lasting over 17 years and the absence of effective domestic remedies to address this issue.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court examined the case based on the “reasonable time” requirement criteria:
– Complexity of the case
– Conduct of the applicant
– Conduct of relevant authorities
– What was at stake for the applicant
2. The Court referenced its previous decision in Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (2006) as a leading case dealing with similar issues of lengthy proceedings in Ukraine.
3. The Court’s findings:
– The length of proceedings (17 years, 7 months, and 26 days) was excessive
– The applicant had no effective remedy at the national level
– Ukraine was ordered to pay EUR 7,800 in non-pecuniary damages
Key important provisions:
1. The Court’s confirmation that civil proceedings lasting over 17 years violate the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1.
2. The Court’s emphasis on the state’s obligation to provide effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings.
3. The establishment of compensation amount (EUR 7,800) as appropriate remedy for non-pecuniary damage in cases of unreasonably long proceedings.
4. The requirement for Ukraine to convert and pay the awarded amount within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment.
CASE OF POULOPOULOS v. GREECE
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Poulopoulos v. Greece:
Essence of the decision:
The case concerns a terminally ill prisoner who complained about poor detention conditions at the Korydallos Prison Hospital in Greece. The Court found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to inadequate detention conditions and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) due to the lack of effective domestic remedies. After the applicant’s death, his siblings were allowed to continue the proceedings, and the Court awarded them EUR 8,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established that the detention conditions were inadequate, including:
– Overcrowding
– Poor hygiene in sanitation facilities
– Absence of prescribed special food regime
– Incompatibility with the applicant’s medical condition
2. The Court found that domestic remedies were ineffective because:
– Available legal mechanisms were not suitable for addressing general detention conditions
– The process for medical release took unreasonably long (five months)
– The proceedings lacked urgency despite the applicant’s terminal condition
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that rights under Article 3 can be pursued by heirs when there is sufficient moral dimension and involvement during incarceration
2. The Court emphasized that remedies for seriously ill prisoners must be examined within a timeframe that takes into account their dignity and specific needs
3. The Court maintained its position that certificates from detention facilities have little evidentiary value when not supported by objective documentation
4. The Court reinforced the principle that when dealing with vulnerable prisoners (especially terminally ill ones), there is a heightened responsibility to ensure adequate detention conditions and prompt response to medical release requests.
CASE OF ROMANO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Here’s the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Romano and Others v. Italy:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns multiple applications against Italy regarding the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions due to municipalities initiating “pre-insolvency” procedures. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning both the non-enforcement of domestic decisions and the limitation on the applicants’ right of access to court. The Court ordered Italy to ensure enforcement of pending decisions and pay compensation to the applicants.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The decision addresses the issue of municipalities using the “pre-insolvency” procedure (procedura di riequilibrio finanziario pluriennale) to suspend enforcement proceedings against them.
2. The Court examined two main aspects:
– Non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions
– Denial of access to court due to the suspension of enforcement proceedings
3. The Court found that:
– The authorities failed to deploy necessary efforts to enforce decisions in due time
– The indefinite suspension of enforcement proceedings violates the right of access to court
4. The Court ordered monetary compensation and mandated enforcement of pending decisions within three months
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court established that the “pre-insolvency” procedure cannot indefinitely suspend enforcement proceedings, as this violates the right to access to court
2. The suspension period remains outside applicants’ control as it depends on administrative bodies’ activities
3. The Court maintained its previous position from De Luca v. Italy case regarding the unlawfulness of preventing enforcement proceedings against municipalities
4. The decision sets specific time limits (three months) for both monetary compensation and enforcement of pending decisions
5. The Court confirmed that execution of judgments must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” under Article 6
CASE OF SEMCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined 12 joined applications against Ukraine concerning inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in all cases, related to poor detention conditions in Kryvyi Rih Detention Facility. The Court awarded compensation ranging from 1,500 to 7,500 euros to the applicants.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined 12 separate applications due to similar subject matter.
2. The complaints focused on two main issues:
– Inadequate conditions of detention (Article 3)
– Lack of effective remedy (Article 13)
3. The Court found violations based on:
– Overcrowding (2.5-3.9 m² per inmate)
– Poor sanitary conditions
– Lack of basic facilities and amenities
– Insufficient access to fresh air and exercise
4. The Court referenced previous similar cases (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) as precedents.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that serious lack of space in prison cells is a crucial factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading.”
2. Specific evidence requirements were outlined: the Government must provide primary evidence including cell floor plans and actual number of inmates.
3. The Court established that Ukrainian authorities failed to provide adequate detention conditions and effective remedies for complaints.
4. Detailed compensation amounts were awarded based on the duration and severity of poor conditions, with specific amounts listed for each applicant in the appended table.
CASE OF TYMOSHENKO v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined the case of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine concerning deficiencies in proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of detention. The applicant’s son continued the case after his father’s death in August 2023. The Court found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to lack of speediness in reviewing detention orders.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court first addressed the locus standi issue, confirming Mr. Oleksandr Tymoshenko’s right to pursue the application on behalf of his deceased father.
2. The main focus was on Article 5 § 4 violations, specifically examining whether Ukraine provided adequate and speedy review of detention orders.
3. The Court referenced the Kharchenko v. Ukraine case as a leading precedent for similar violations.
4. The decision concluded with a monetary award of 500 euros in non-pecuniary damages to be paid by Ukraine to the applicant.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that detained persons are entitled to a review of both procedural and substantive conditions of their detention’s lawfulness.
2. While states are not required to establish a second level of jurisdiction for examining detention lawfulness, if they do, they must provide the same guarantees as at first instance.
3. The Court found that the time taken by Ukrainian courts to review detention orders (ranging from several weeks to months) violated the requirement for speedy review under Article 5 § 4.
4. The judgment establishes another precedent regarding Ukraine’s systematic issues with detention review procedures, following the pattern identified in the Kharchenko case.
