CASE OF BILYAVSKA v. UKRAINE
Let me provide a detailed analysis of this important ECHR decision:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– This case concerns a dispute between an elderly Ukrainian woman and her adult children who occupied her house in Bucha, Ukraine, making it impossible for her to live there. The Court found violations of both Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property rights) and Article 8 (right to respect for home) of the Convention, as Ukrainian courts failed to properly adjudicate the property dispute and protect the applicant’s rights. The Court criticized Ukrainian courts for relying solely on outdated Soviet-era Housing Code provisions while ignoring more relevant Civil Code norms, and for failing to consider the applicant’s vulnerability as an elderly woman trying to regain access to her home.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case examined two main legal issues:
1) Protection of property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1
2) Right to respect for home under Article 8
The Court found that:
– Ukrainian courts failed in their positive duty to adjudicate private property disputes in a non-arbitrary manner
– The courts improperly relied on outdated Soviet Housing Code while ignoring modern Civil Code provisions
– The house constituted applicant’s “home” despite periods of absence
– The state failed to ensure effective procedural safeguards for protecting the applicant’s rights
– The applicant was awarded €5,900 in non-pecuniary damages and €2,600 in costs
3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court emphasized that domestic courts must properly balance competing private interests in property disputes
– Even secondary residences can constitute “home” under Article 8 despite weaker links
– States must provide adequate procedural safeguards when legal framework requires sharing home with others
– Courts should consider vulnerability of elderly persons in housing disputes
– Soviet-era Housing Code provisions may be incompatible with modern property rights protection
– The judgment sets important standards for adjudicating family property disputes in post-Soviet countries
The decision is particularly significant for Ukraine as it highlights problems with applying outdated Soviet legislation and the need to ensure better protection of property rights and home respect rights, especially for vulnerable individuals like elderly persons.
CASE OF GOLOVCHUK v. UKRAINE
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Golovchuk v. Ukraine:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– The case concerns unlawful interference with a judge’s exercise of judicial office after her court (High Administrative Court) was terminated due to judicial reform in Ukraine. The Court found violations of Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to access to court) of the Convention because the judge was prevented from exercising her judicial functions for 6 years without proper legal basis and couldn’t effectively challenge this situation. The Court emphasized that while states can reform judiciary, they must respect judicial independence and the principle of irremovability of judges.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two main complaints: violation of right to private life (Article 8) and lack of access to court (Article 6 §1)
– The Court distinguished this case from previous Gumenyuk case as it dealt with judges of abolished courts rather than renamed Supreme Court
– Key finding: domestic authorities failed to provide the judge with new judicial assignment despite her having confirmed suitability to serve as judge
– The Court awarded €5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,000 for legal costs
3. Most important provisions for practical use:
– The Court confirmed that preventing judges from exercising judicial functions without formal dismissal constitutes interference with private life under Article 8
– Judges whose courts are abolished have right to new judicial assignment in line with principle of irremovability
– States must provide effective mechanisms for transfer of judges from abolished courts to maintain judicial independence
– Lack of access to court to challenge prevention from exercising judicial duties violates Article 6 §1
– The decision creates important precedent for protection of judicial independence during reforms
The decision is particularly significant for Ukraine as it sets standards for treatment of judges during judicial reforms and emphasizes need to respect judicial independence and provide proper legal mechanisms for judges’ transfer between courts.
CASE OF BABKINIS v. UKRAINE
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.
CASE OF REVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights examined three joined applications from Ukrainian nationals regarding their pre-trial detention related to a terrorist attack investigation in Dnipropetrovsk in 2012. The Court found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning unlawful detention and lack of justification for prolonged pre-trial detention. The case involved allegations of breaches of presumption of innocence and other human rights violations during the investigation of explosions that occurred before UEFA Euro 2012.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court found violations regarding two aspects of detention:
– Unlawful detention without court order (Article 5 § 1) for periods between October-November 2012
– Unjustified prolonged pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3) for periods ranging from 1.7 to 5.7 years
2. The Court rejected complaints regarding presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2) as inadmissible, finding that:
– Official statements were sufficiently reserved and didn’t name the suspects
– Media coverage couldn’t be directly attributed to state authorities
– Parliamentary statement expressing doubt about applicants’ guilt didn’t violate presumption of innocence
Most important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that keeping defendants in detention without specific legal basis or clear rules is incompatible with principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness.
2. The Court emphasized that while authorities can inform public about ongoing investigations, they must do so with discretion to respect presumption of innocence.
3. The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage to two applicants (2,300 EUR each) and legal costs to one applicant (1,500 EUR), while rejecting the second applicant’s claims due to procedural reasons.
