Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Grebenyuk v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to an ineffective investigation into a life-threatening traffic accident involving Mr. Grebenyuk. The Court highlighted several shortcomings in the investigation, including a lack of thoroughness and promptness, which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the accident and identify any responsible parties. The case echoes previous rulings against Ukraine regarding similar failures in investigations. The Court emphasized that while investigations don’t have to be successful in every instance, they must employ adequate means to establish the facts and potentially punish those responsible. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Grebenyuk 6,000 euros in damages for non-pecuniary harm. ****
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged with the Court in November 2023 and communicated to the Ukrainian Government.
* **Facts:** This section briefly describes the applicant’s details and the relevant background information pertaining to the application.
* **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, focusing on the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention (right to life).
* The Court clarifies that the case is examined under the procedural limb of Article 2, which concerns the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation.
* It references established principles regarding effective investigations, including adequacy, promptness, involvement of the family, and independence.
* The Court then assesses the facts of the case, identifying shortcomings in the investigation that hindered the establishment of circumstances and responsibility.
* The Court refers to similar past cases against Ukraine where violations were found.
* Ultimately, the Court concludes that the investigation did not meet the criteria of effectiveness, leading to a breach of Article 2.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section addresses the issue of just satisfaction. The Court, referring to its previous case-law, awards the applicant a sum of money for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the application admissible, holding that there was a violation of Article 2, and ordering Ukraine to pay the applicant 6,000 euros plus interest.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a summary table with key details of the application, including the applicant’s information, background to the case, key issues, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Procedural Obligation:** The judgment underscores the State’s duty to conduct effective investigations, even in cases where State agents are not directly involved.
* **Criteria for Effective Investigation:** The decision reiterates the key elements of an effective investigation: adequacy of measures, promptness, family involvement, and independence. These serve as benchmarks for assessing the quality of investigations.
* **Impact of Shortcomings:** The judgment highlights how various shortcomings can undermine the effectiveness of an investigation, preventing the establishment of facts and accountability.
* **Precedent Setting:** The Court explicitly refers to previous cases against Ukraine with similar issues, indicating a pattern of ineffective investigations. This can be used as a reference in future similar cases.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The award of 6,000 euros provides a benchmark for compensation in cases involving similar violations and circumstances.
* **Appendix information:** The appendix contains a short description of the case and may be useful for a quick understanding of the decision.
