Here’s a breakdown of the Danevych v. Ukraine judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned the dismissal of the applicant, Mr. Danevych, from his position as First Deputy Head of the State Treasury under Ukraine’s Government Cleansing Act (GCA), also known as the Lustration Law. He complained about the excessive length of the court proceedings related to his attempted reinstatement and the lack of effective domestic remedies for this delay. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to the length of the proceedings and the lack of a remedy for that length. However, the Court deemed his complaints regarding the violation of his right to private life (Article 8) due to the dismissal itself and the related lack of remedy as premature, citing the possibility of obtaining an individual assessment of his situation in Ukrainian courts following changes in domestic case-law after the *Polyakh and Others* judgment.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the core issues: the applicant’s dismissal under the GCA, the length of reinstatement proceedings, and the lack of remedies.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 6 § 1 and 13 Violation:** The Court declared the complaints regarding the length of proceedings admissible. It referenced the *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine* case, noting similarities. It acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings (over ten years) and the absence of an effective remedy.
* **Article 8 and 13 Violation:** The Court referenced its earlier judgment in *Polyakh and Others*, which addressed the lustration process in Ukraine. It noted that after the *Polyakh and Others* judgment, Ukrainian courts began to offer individual assessments in lustration cases. Because of this, the Court considered the applicant’s complaint regarding his dismissal as premature, as he had not pursued these new avenues for an individual assessment.
* **Application of Article 41:** The applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage was rejected, but he was awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court declared parts of the application admissible and others inadmissible, held that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and specified the amounts to be paid to the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Length of Proceedings:** The judgment reinforces the principle that reinstatement proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision highlights the importance of having effective domestic remedies for excessive delays in court proceedings.
* **Individual Assessment in Lustration Cases:** The Court’s emphasis on the possibility of an individual assessment following the *Polyakh and Others* judgment is crucial. It suggests that individuals affected by lustration measures should pursue these avenues in domestic courts before seeking recourse at the ECtHR.
* **Prematurity of Complaints:** The judgment illustrates that complaints to the ECtHR may be considered premature if domestic legal avenues have not been fully explored, especially when there are ongoing developments in domestic case-law.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine as it concerns the application of the Lustration Law and its impact on individuals. The judgment underscores the need for Ukraine to ensure that court proceedings are conducted efficiently and that individuals have access to effective remedies for violations of their rights. It also highlights the importance of individual assessments in the application of lustration measures.
