Okay, here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Bogdan Shevchuk v. Ukraine.
**Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 34 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of Bogdan Shevchuk. The Court concluded that Ukraine had hindered Shevchuk’s right to individual application to the Court. This was due to the involvement of a judge in both the initial criminal proceedings against Shevchuk, which formed the basis of his application to the ECtHR, and in new criminal proceedings against him. The Court also found Shevchuk’s detention unlawful because it was extended by a court that lacked jurisdiction, constituting a “gross and obvious irregularity.”
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s focus on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, the availability of a procedure to challenge it, and alleged pressure to withdraw his application to the Court. It then details the facts, dividing them into the first and second sets of criminal proceedings against Shevchuk, and the circumstances surrounding Shevchuk’s request to withdraw his application to the ECtHR. The judgment outlines the relevant Ukrainian legal framework, specifically articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) concerning the transfer of criminal proceedings between courts, circumstances preventing a judge’s participation in proceedings, and a judge’s duties regarding the protection of human rights. The Court then outlines the scope of the case, and considers the applicant’s strike-out request and the alleged violation of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, awarding Shevchuk 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 34 Violation:** The Court emphasizes that any form of pressure, including indirect acts, designed to discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention complaint constitutes a violation. The Court highlights the importance of applicants being able to communicate freely with the Court without fear of reprisal.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court reiterates that detention orders issued by a court exceeding its jurisdiction constitute a “gross and obvious irregularity” and a violation of Article 5 § 1.
* **Withdrawal Requests:** The Court states that withdrawal requests from applicants must be treated with caution, especially when the applicant might be in a vulnerable position. The Court will consider if the request demonstrates a genuine intention to withdraw the case.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding the conduct of judges and the protection of individuals who bring complaints before the European Court of Human Rights. It underscores the importance of judicial impartiality and the right to a fair trial, as well as the obligation of states to ensure that applicants can exercise their right to individual application without fear of pressure or intimidation.
