CASE OF BENDEROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Benderová v. Slovakia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Slovakia in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning a property dispute initiated by the applicant’s mother. The proceedings, lasting over twelve years at one level of jurisdiction, were deemed unreasonably long. The Court ruled that the just satisfaction of EUR 500 awarded by the Constitutional Court was insufficient. The ECtHR awarded the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, the parties involved, and the representation details.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the factual background, including the initiation of the civil proceedings in 2009, the applicant’s intervention as heir in 2020, and the Constitutional Court’s finding of a violation in 2021. It notes the duration of the proceedings, the lack of a first instance decision on the merits, and the pending appeal as of February 2022.
* **Law:** This section presents the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 regarding the “reasonable time” requirement. It addresses the Government’s arguments regarding the applicant’s victim status and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court references its established case-law on assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length, considering factors like complexity, conduct of parties, and what was at stake for the applicant.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determines the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the applicant, referencing its previous case-law.
* **Operative Part:** The Court declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and orders Slovakia to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Victim Status:** The Court clarifies that an heir who declares their intention to continue proceedings can complain about the entire length of those proceedings, starting from their initiation.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The judgment reiterates that repeated recourse to domestic remedies is not required if the initial remedy (in this case, the Constitutional Court’s judgment) does not adequately address the violation, particularly when the just satisfaction awarded is disproportionately low.
* **Reasonable Time Assessment:** The decision reaffirms the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length: complexity of the case, conduct of the parties and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant.
* **Insufficient Just Satisfaction:** The Court emphasizes that a low amount of just satisfaction awarded by a domestic court may not be considered sufficient redress, especially when the proceedings remain excessively long and the domestic court has not ruled on the merits of the case.
I hope this analysis is helpful!
CASE OF BODORIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Bodorin and Others v. Romania (Revision):
The ECtHR revised its previous judgment of September 21, 2023, following the Romanian Government’s notification that one of the applicants, Ms. Mirela-Alexandra Ciucă, had passed away before the initial judgment was delivered. The government requested the revision because Ms. Ciucă’s heirs did not inform the Court of her death or express interest in pursuing the application. The Court agreed that the applicant’s death, unknown at the time of the original judgment, constituted a decisive fact warranting revision under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. As no heirs came forward to continue the application, the Court decided to strike out application no. 24429/17 from its list of cases, effectively nullifying the just satisfaction initially awarded to the deceased applicant.
The structure of the decision is straightforward: It begins with the procedural background, outlining the initial case, the violation found, and the government’s request for revision. It then moves to “The Law,” where it presents the government’s arguments for revision and cites relevant articles of the Convention and the Rules of Court. The Court’s reasoning follows, explaining why it grants the revision request and ultimately decides to strike out the application. The decision concludes with the operative provisions, formally announcing the revision and the striking out of the case. The main change from the previous judgment is the removal of Ms. Ciucă’s application from the list of cases and the cancellation of the just satisfaction awarded to her.
The most important aspect of this decision is its clarification on how the Court handles cases where an applicant dies before a judgment is delivered and their heirs do not express interest in pursuing the case. It confirms that such circumstances constitute a valid ground for revising a judgment under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. This decision reinforces the principle that the Court’s proceedings are primarily intended to address the grievances of living individuals or those whose heirs actively seek to continue the legal battle.
CASE OF GREBENYUK v. UKRAINE
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.
CASE OF HORVÁTH AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Here’s a breakdown of the Horváth and Others v. Hungary decision by the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Hungary violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings in the cases of several applicants. The Court examined five separate applications jointly, finding that the length of the proceedings in each case was unreasonable. Additionally, the Court found violations regarding other complaints raised by some applicants under the Convention, referencing its established case-law. As a result, the Court ordered Hungary to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged against Hungary under Article 34 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the key details of each application, including the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of criminal proceedings.
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The core of the judgment addresses the applicants’ complaints that the length of their criminal proceedings violated their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court assessed the reasonableness of the length of proceedings based on the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The decision also addresses other complaints raised by some applicants, finding additional violations based on the Court’s well-established case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court applied Article 41 of the Convention, which allows it to award just satisfaction to the injured party if internal law only allows partial reparation.
* **Operative Part:** The judgment concludes by declaring the applications admissible, holding that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of proceedings, and finding violations regarding the other complaints. It orders Hungary to pay specific amounts to each applicant as compensation.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The key takeaway is the finding that Hungary violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings. This reaffirms the importance of timely justice and the state’s obligation to ensure proceedings do not drag on unreasonably.
* **Reference to Established Case-Law:** The decision refers to the Court’s existing case-law, particularly the Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary case, indicating that the principles applied in this case are consistent with previous rulings on similar issues.
* **Compensation:** The judgment specifies the amounts of compensation to be paid to each applicant, providing a tangible outcome and a measure of the damages suffered due to the violations.
* **Other Violations:** The decision also highlights other violations of the Convention, indicating that the applicants’ rights were infringed in multiple ways.
**** This decision may be relevant to Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of ensuring timely and fair criminal proceedings, a principle that is vital for upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights.
CASE OF KHRYAPA v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Khryapa v. Ukraine:
1. The Essence of the Decision:
The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the excessive length of civil proceedings involving Mr. Khryapa and the lack of an effective domestic remedy for this issue. The court determined that the duration of over eight years for the proceedings was unreasonable, referencing its established case-law on similar matters. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicant 1,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. Structure and Main Provisions:
* **Procedure:** This section outlines the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged in 2017 and that the applicant was represented by a lawyer. It also mentions that the Ukrainian Government was notified of the application.
* **The Facts:** This section refers to an appended table containing the applicant’s details and information relevant to the application.
* **The Law:** This is the core of the decision, detailing the alleged violations and the Court’s reasoning:
* The applicant claimed a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 due to the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.
* The Court referred to its established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and what was at stake for the applicant.
* The Court cited a previous similar case against Ukraine, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, where a violation was found.
* The Court concluded that the length of the proceedings in Mr. Khryapa’s case was excessive and that he did not have an effective remedy available to him.
* The Court declared the complaints admissible and found a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section addresses just satisfaction. The Court, referring to its previous case-law, found it reasonable to award the applicant the sum indicated in the appended table (1,200 euros).
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court:
* Declared the application admissible.
* Held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* Ordered Ukraine to pay the applicant 1,200 euros within three months, with interest accruing in case of late payment.
* **Appendix:** This table provides a summary of the case, including the applicant’s details, the duration of the proceedings, and the amount awarded.
3. Main Provisions for Use:
* **Finding of Violation:** The key takeaway is the Court’s finding that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
* **Reasonable Time:** The decision reinforces the importance of the “reasonable time” requirement in civil proceedings and highlights that a delay of over eight years is likely to be considered excessive.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision underscores the obligation of states to provide effective remedies for complaints about the length of proceedings.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The award of 1,200 euros for non-pecuniary damage provides a benchmark for similar cases.
* **Reference to Previous Case-Law:** The Court’s reliance on Karnaushenko v. Ukraine demonstrates the consistency of its approach to cases involving similar issues in Ukraine.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues with the length of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies within the Ukrainian legal system. This is particularly relevant for Ukrainians involved in legal proceedings and for those seeking to understand their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE OF MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan:
The European Court of Human Rights found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 5, Sections 1 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicant, Mr. Muradverdiyev, complained about unlawful detention and the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention. The Court determined that Mr. Muradverdiyev’s unrecorded detention on June 20, 2013, from 9:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. constituted a breach of Article 5 § 1. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 due to the domestic courts’ failure to provide sufficient reasons for applying pre-trial detention. The applicant was awarded EUR 3,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
**Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision**
The judgment is structured in the standard ECHR format, beginning with the procedure, outlining how the case was brought before the Court. It then summarizes the facts of the case as presented by the applicant. The core of the judgment lies in “The Law,” where the Court assesses the alleged violations of the Convention.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court refers to its established case-law, emphasizing that any deprivation of liberty must be lawful and protect individuals from arbitrariness. It cites previous cases against Azerbaijan where similar violations were found. The key finding here is that the applicant’s detention was “unrecorded,” making it unlawful under Article 5 § 1.
* **Article 5 § 3 Violation:** The Court also refers to its well-established case-law on the requirement for sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention. It concludes that the domestic courts failed to provide these reasons, thus violating Article 5 § 3.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court states that it has addressed the main legal questions and does not need to rule separately on the other complaints raised by the applicant.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awards the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
**Key Provisions for Use**
* **Unrecorded Detention:** The judgment reinforces the principle that any detention must be properly documented. This is crucial for preventing arbitrary deprivations of liberty.
* **Justification for Pre-Trial Detention:** The decision highlights the obligation of domestic courts to provide clear and sufficient reasons when ordering pre-trial detention. This ensures that such measures are not applied arbitrarily and are subject to proper scrutiny.
* **Reliance on Established Case-Law:** The Court’s reliance on previous cases against Azerbaijan indicates a pattern of similar violations, which can be used in future cases against the country.
**** This decision is important as it adds to the body of case law concerning human rights violations in Azerbaijan, particularly regarding unlawful detention.
CASE OF OLISHCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the Olishchuk and Others v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights, tailored for journalistic use:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court ruled that the length of criminal proceedings against the applicants was excessive and unreasonable. Furthermore, the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the length of these proceedings within Ukraine. The Court has joined three applications due to the similarity of the subject matter. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged under Article 34 of the Convention and that the Ukrainian Government was notified.
* **Facts:** This section briefly refers to the appended table, which contains the list of applicants and relevant details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This is the core of the judgment. The Court referenced its established case-law, particularly the Nechay v. Ukraine case, which dealt with similar issues. It found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that no effective remedy was available to the applicants.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amount of compensation to be awarded to each applicant, referencing its previous case-law (Bevz v. Ukraine) as a guide.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision:
* The applications are joined.
* The applications are admissible.
* There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* Ukraine is ordered to pay the specified amounts in damages, plus interest in case of late payment.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, details of the proceedings, and the amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1 (Reasonable Time):** The key takeaway is the finding that Ukraine failed to ensure that the criminal proceedings against the applicants were conducted within a reasonable time. This reinforces the importance of timely justice.
* **Violation of Article 13 (Effective Remedy):** The judgment highlights the absence of an effective domestic remedy for the applicants to challenge the excessive length of proceedings. This underscores the need for accessible and effective mechanisms for individuals to seek redress for violations of their rights.
* **Compensation:** The specific amounts awarded to each applicant (detailed in the appendix) provide a tangible measure of the damages suffered due to the violations.
* **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The judgment references previous cases (Nechay v. Ukraine, Bevz v. Ukraine), indicating that the Court is applying established principles and standards in its assessment.
* **Unanimous Decision:** The decision was unanimous, which strengthens the authority and persuasiveness of the judgment.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues with the length of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies within the country. This information could be particularly relevant for Ukrainians involved in legal proceedings or those working on judicial reform.
CASE OF SHPITALNIK AND ARTYUKH v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of *Shpitalnik and Artyukh v. Ukraine*:
**Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to disproportionate sanctions imposed on the applicants in customs cases. The applicants complained about the confiscation of undeclared cash and the imposition of fines, arguing that these sanctions were excessive. The Court agreed, referencing its previous judgments on similar issues, and concluded that the combined penalty of confiscation and fines placed a disproportionate burden on the applicants. The Court awarded pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to the applicants.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with the procedural history, outlining the applications made by Shpitalnik and Artyukh against Ukraine. It then summarizes the facts of the case, followed by the legal analysis. The Court decided to join the two applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, focusing on the principle of proportionality in sanctions related to customs violations. The Court referenced its prior case law, particularly *Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41 of the Convention, addressing just satisfaction for the applicants, awarding pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
**Key Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Disproportionate Sanctions:** The central takeaway is the emphasis on the principle of proportionality in customs-related sanctions. The ECtHR reiterated that while states have the right to enforce customs regulations, the penalties imposed must be proportionate to the offense.
* **Confiscation and Fines:** The decision highlights that the combination of confiscating undeclared cash and imposing a fine can be considered a disproportionate burden, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Reference to Prior Case Law:** The judgment references *Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine*, indicating that the ECtHR is consistently applying similar principles in cases involving disproportionate customs sanctions in Ukraine.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s approach to just satisfaction is also noteworthy. While acknowledging a violation, the Court also stated that this finding does not imply that the applicants did not have to bear any responsibility for the breach of domestic law they had committed by failing to declare the cash.
**** This decision is important for Ukraine because it reinforces the need for Ukrainian authorities to review and potentially revise their customs regulations and sanctioning practices to ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality under the European Convention on Human Rights. It also provides a clear precedent for similar cases involving disproportionate sanctions in customs matters.
CASE OF ŢÎBÎRNĂ AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Okay, here is the analysis of the decision in the case of Ţîbîrnă and Others v. the Republic of Moldova.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment concerning the non-enforcement of a final judgment in favor of a group of applicants against private debtors in Moldova. The core issue was the alleged failure of a State agent to properly execute a seizing order, leading to the alienation of the debtors’ assets and, consequently, the impossibility of enforcing the judgment. The applicants argued that this failure violated their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court found a violation of these articles for some applicants, determining that the authorities’ actions directly impacted the enforcement proceedings. While some applicants were excluded due to procedural issues, the Court awarded EUR 1,000 each to the remaining applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage, but did not award any compensation for pecuniary damage or costs and expenses due to lack of supporting documentation.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and representation. It then presents the facts, detailing the applicants’ investments in a fraudulent company, the criminal proceedings against the company’s director, and the non-enforcement of the judgment due to the actions of a corrupt investigator. The decision then moves to the legal analysis, addressing the alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considers the admissibility of the application, the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the State’s responsibility in enforcing judgments against private debtors. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The decision includes annexes listing the applicants, their details, and the status of their applications.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the State’s responsibility in enforcing judgments even against private entities. The Court emphasizes that the State has a positive obligation to provide a legal framework that allows individuals to recover sums awarded by judgments. While this is not an obligation of result, the State can be held responsible if irregularities by its authorities negatively affect the enforcement proceedings. In this case, the actions of the investigating officer, a State agent, directly led to the alienation of assets, preventing the enforcement of the judgment and engaging the State’s responsibility under the Convention.
CASE OF VOROSHYLO v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Voroshylo v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The applicant, Eduard Anatoliyovych Voroshylo, complained that he was not properly notified of the appeal lodged by the opposing party in his case regarding a credit debt collection. Because the Ukrainian courts proceeded with the appeal without ensuring Voroshylo was informed or given an opportunity to respond, the ECtHR ruled that he was denied a fair hearing and equality of arms. The Court referenced its existing case law on similar issues, particularly concerning failures in notification. As a result, Voroshylo was awarded EUR 500 in damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged with the Court on February 7, 2023, and notice was given to the Ukrainian Government.
* **Facts:** This section briefly mentions that the applicant’s details and relevant information are set out in an appended table.
* **The Law:** This is the core of the decision, focusing on the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* The Court reiterates key principles of a fair trial, including the adversarial nature of proceedings and the principle of equality of arms.
* It emphasizes that parties must have the opportunity to know and comment on the other party’s submissions, including appeals.
* The Court refers to previous cases against Ukraine (Strizhak v. Ukraine and Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found.
* Based on the lack of evidence of proper notification, the Court concludes that Ukraine failed to respect the principle of equality of arms.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section addresses just satisfaction. The Court, considering the case details and its precedent, deems it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 500.
* **Operative Part:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s unanimous decision:
* Declares the application admissible.
* Holds that Article 6 § 1 was breached.
* Orders Ukraine to pay the applicant EUR 500 within three months, with interest on any delayed payment.
* **Appendix:** A table summarizes the key details of the application, including the applicant’s information, the nature of the dispute, court dates, the specific irregularity (failure to notify), relevant case law, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Fair Trial Principles:** The decision reinforces the fundamental principles of a fair trial, particularly the right to be informed of proceedings and the principle of equality of arms.
* **Notification Obligation:** It highlights the obligation of domestic courts to ensure that parties are properly notified of appeals and have an opportunity to respond.
* **Precedent:** The reference to previous cases against Ukraine (Strizhak and Lazarenko) establishes a clear precedent for similar failures in notification.
* **Equality of Arms:** The judgment underscores that denying a party the chance to comment on an appeal undermines the equality of arms and the fairness of the proceedings.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The relatively modest award of EUR 500 provides a benchmark for damages in cases involving similar procedural violations.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine, as it highlights a recurring issue within its judicial system regarding the notification of parties in legal proceedings. It serves as a reminder of Ukraine’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure fair trial standards are met.
