CASE OF SADOMSKI v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Sadomski v. Poland:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Poland violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in civil matters. The case concerned a judge, Mr. Sadomski, who applied for a position in the Supreme Court. Despite a binding interim order from the Supreme Administrative Court staying the implementation of a resolution related to the appointment of judges, the President of Poland appointed judges based on that resolution. Subsequent legislative actions further limited the possibility of judicial review in such cases, effectively nullifying the positive rulings Mr. Sadomski had obtained. The ECtHR concluded that these actions deprived Mr. Sadomski of an effective judicial remedy and thus violated his right to a fair trial.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s background, including Mr. Sadomski’s application for a judicial post, the competition procedure, and the relevant resolutions and appeals.
* **Interim Orders:** It details the interim orders issued by the Supreme Administrative Court to stay the implementation of the resolution recommending candidates for appointment.
* **Presidential Appointments:** It notes that the President of Poland appointed the recommended candidates despite the pending appeals and interim orders.
* **CJEU Involvement:** The judgment mentions the Supreme Administrative Court’s request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the subsequent CJEU judgment.
* **Constitutional Court’s Judgment:** It refers to the Constitutional Court’s judgment that deemed certain provisions regarding judicial review of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) resolutions unconstitutional, as well as subsequent legislative amendments.
* **Supreme Administrative Court’s Judgment:** The judgment describes the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling in Mr. Sadomski’s case, which set aside the NCJ’s resolution but had no practical effect due to prior appointments.
* **Legal Framework:** It references the relevant Polish legal framework and practice.
* **The Law:** This section contains the ECtHR’s legal analysis, including preliminary remarks, the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, admissibility considerations (such as the applicability of Article 6 and the exhaustion of domestic remedies), and the merits of the case.
* **Article 41:** Deals with the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, including the dismissal of the government’s preliminary objections, the declaration of admissibility of the complaint, the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, and the determination that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Applicability of Article 6:** The Court reaffirmed that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies to disputes concerning access to public service, specifically judicial posts, emphasizing the right of equal access.
* **Eskelinen Test:** The Court applied the Eskelinen test to determine whether the right in question was a “civil” one, finding that the first condition of the test was not met because national law did not exclude access to a court for a claim concerning equal access to public service.
* **Rule of Law:** The Court emphasized that the right to a court would be illusory if a state’s legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative.
* **Breach of Domestic Law:** The Court highlighted the manifest breaches of domestic law, including the interference with judicial review and the appointments made despite binding interim orders.
* **Ineffectiveness of Judicial Review:** The Court concluded that the judicial review conducted by the domestic court was insufficient, as the interim order and final judgment were rendered inoperative to the applicant’s detriment.
This decision underscores the importance of an effective judicial review and the obligation of states to ensure that judicial decisions are respected and implemented.
: This decision is related to Poland, but it has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as it concerns the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, principles that are crucial for the protection of human rights and the proper functioning of a democratic society, especially in countries undergoing reforms or facing external pressures.
CASE OF BONDAR v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Bondar v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case concerned two applicants who were deprived of their land plots after a prosecutor challenged the legality of the initial land allocation. The Ukrainian courts sided with the prosecutor, arguing the land was forestry land and should not have been transferred to private ownership. The ECtHR ruled that the applicants did not receive adequate compensation or reparation for the loss of their property, leading to a disproportionate interference with their property rights.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** Clearly states the case is about the deprivation of land plots and the applicants’ reliance on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Background:** Outlines the sequence of events, including the initial allocation of land, the prosecutor’s challenge, and the decisions of the Ukrainian courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Locus Standi:** Addressed the issue of the first applicant continuing the proceedings after the second applicant’s death, affirming his right to do so.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** This section forms the core of the judgment, assessing the lawfulness, public interest, and proportionality of the property deprivation.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the government’s preliminary objection regarding the availability of domestic remedies, referencing a similar previous case.
* **Merits:** The Court focused on whether the applicants had the opportunity to obtain compensation or reparation for the loss of their property. It reiterated that taking property without adequate compensation is generally a disproportionate interference.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
* The Court ordered the respondent State to ensure full restitution of the applicants’ title to the plots of land in issue, or the provision of monetary compensation or of comparable property to the applicants.
* The Court awarded EUR 1,500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* The Court awarded EUR 110 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Proportionality of Interference:** The decision emphasizes the importance of compensation when property is taken. A lack of compensation is only justifiable in exceptional circumstances.
* **Availability of Remedies:** The Court’s rejection of the government’s argument regarding domestic remedies highlights the need for clear and effective mechanisms for compensation in cases of property deprivation.
* **Restitution or Compensation:** The Court’s order for restitution of the land or, alternatively, monetary compensation or comparable property, underscores the State’s obligation to provide adequate redress for the violation of property rights.
* **Succession:** The Court allowed the husband of the deceased applicant to continue with the case.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF KULYK v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Kulyk v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Kulyk, who was deprived of his land following a prosecutor’s action that challenged the legality of the land allocation. The ECtHR found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) because the domestic courts’ decisions were based on vaguely defined regulations regarding “protected shoreline belts,” leading to an arbitrary deprivation of property without compensation. The Court emphasized that the lack of clear boundaries and the negligible portion of the land falling within the protected zone, combined with the long-standing agricultural use of the land, made the deprivation disproportionate. The Court ordered Ukraine to restore Mr. Kulyk’s title to the land or provide adequate compensation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the factual background, including the allocation of land to Mr. Kulyk, the prosecutor’s challenge, and the domestic courts’ conflicting decisions.
* **The Court’s Assessments:**
* **Scope of the Case:** Clarifies that the complaint falls under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Addresses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted. It then examines the merits, finding an interference with Mr. Kulyk’s property rights.
* The Court questions the lawfulness of the interference due to the vague regulations and the small portion of land within the protected zone.
* It finds a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the deprivation was disproportionate, as Mr. Kulyk received no compensation.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s claim for damages. The Court orders Ukraine to restore the land title or provide compensation or comparable property and awards EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Property Rights:** The core finding is that Ukraine violated Mr. Kulyk’s right to property due to the arbitrary and disproportionate deprivation of his land.
* **Lack of Clear Legal Basis:** The Court highlighted the problem of vaguely defined regulations regarding “protected shoreline belts” and the absence of formal boundaries, which led to the arbitrary application of the law.
* **Disproportionate Interference:** The Court emphasized that depriving someone of their property without compensation, especially when the land has been used for agricultural purposes for decades and only a negligible portion falls within a restricted zone, is a disproportionate interference.
* **Restitution or Compensation:** The Court ordered Ukraine to either restore Mr. Kulyk’s title to the land or provide adequate compensation or comparable property, setting a precedent for similar cases.
**** This decision highlights the importance of clear and precise legal regulations, especially when dealing with property rights. It also underscores the need for fair compensation when property is taken for public interest purposes. This case may have implications for other similar land disputes in Ukraine, particularly those involving vaguely defined environmental protection zones.
