CASE OF GRYGORCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Grygorchuk and Others v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention in the Zhytomyr Detention Facility No. 8 and the lack of effective remedies for these conditions. The applicants experienced issues such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, lack of privacy, and inadequate access to basic necessities. Additionally, some applicants’ criminal proceedings were excessively long, without effective remedies, violating Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the Convention. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation to each applicant for the violations suffered.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications filed against Ukraine concerning detention conditions.
* **Facts:** The facts section refers to an appended table detailing each applicant, the duration of their detention, specific grievances, and other complaints.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Articles 3 and 13:** The core of the judgment focuses on the inadequate detention conditions and the absence of effective remedies. The Court referenced its established case-law, including *Muršić v. Croatia* and *Ananyev and Others v. Russia*, emphasizing the importance of sufficient personal space and adequate detention conditions. The Court noted that the Ukrainian government failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the applicants’ claims.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Some applicants raised additional complaints, such as the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies, which the Court also found to be violations based on its established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** One applicant raised additional complaints under Article 3, which the Court deemed inadmissible.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts of compensation to be awarded to each applicant, considering the specific circumstances of their cases and referencing its case-law, particularly *Sukachov v. Ukraine*.
* **Decision:** The Court declared the complaints regarding detention conditions, lack of remedies, and other violations admissible, finding breaches of Articles 3, 13, and, where applicable, 6(1) of the Convention. It ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts in damages to the applicants.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The decision reinforces the ECHR’s stance on what constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, particularly concerning prison overcrowding and poor conditions.
* **Lack of Effective Remedy:** The judgment highlights the importance of accessible and effective remedies for individuals who experience inadequate detention conditions.
* **Standard of Evidence:** The decision reiterates the standard of proof required in detention condition cases, emphasizing the government’s responsibility to provide primary evidence to refute claims of ill-treatment.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions and related violations in Ukraine.
* **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The decision references key cases such as *Muršić v. Croatia*, *Ananyev and Others v. Russia*, *Melnik v. Ukraine*, and *Sukachov v. Ukraine*, which are crucial for understanding the ECHR’s established principles on detention conditions and remedies.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it addresses systemic issues within its detention facilities and the judicial system. It serves as a reminder of Ukraine’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and provide effective remedies for violations.
CASE OF KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Krátky v. Slovakia, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial criminal proceedings against two applicants, Mr. Dávid Krátky and Mr. Dominik Krátky, who were charged with attempted premeditated murder in January 2019. The applicants complained that the length of the pre-trial phase violated their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR found that the length of the pre-trial phase, which lasted nearly five years, was indeed excessive, despite the complexity of the case and some delays caused by the applicants. The Court dismissed the Slovak Government’s argument that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, noting that the Constitutional Court had examined the merits of their complaints. Consequently, the ECHR ruled that Slovakia had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each applicant 2,310 euros in damages. The Court also dismissed the applicants’ other complaints, finding no appearance of a violation of other rights enshrined in the Convention.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the application to the ECHR and the notification to the Slovak Government. It then presents the facts of the case, including the charges against the applicants, the timeline of the investigation, and the applicants’ constitutional complaints. The decision proceeds to the legal analysis, addressing the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion, and the Court’s assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction and concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the complaints concerning the length of proceedings admissible, finding a breach of Article 6 § 1, and awarding damages to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.
The main provision of the decision is the finding that the length of the pre-trial phase of the criminal proceedings against the Krátky brothers was excessive and violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is significant because it reinforces the importance of timely justice and the state’s obligation to conduct criminal proceedings without undue delay. The Court’s rejection of the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion is also important, as it clarifies the requirements for exhausting domestic remedies in cases concerning the length of proceedings. Furthermore, the decision highlights the factors that the Court considers when assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, such as the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants.
CASE OF MOROZOVA v. UKRAINE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Morozova v. Ukraine, concerning the ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant’s 17-year-old daughter. The Court found that the investigation into the daughter’s death, allegedly caused by poisoning, was marked by several shortcomings that undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the death and identify any responsible parties. The ECtHR concluded that Ukraine had failed to meet its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life, specifically concerning the procedural duty to conduct an effective investigation. The Court highlighted failures to thoroughly investigate different versions of events, a lack of efficiency criticized by national authorities, and a general lack of thoroughness and promptness in the investigation. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
The structure of the decision begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and representation. It then presents the facts, focusing on the applicant’s daughter’s death and the domestic investigation that followed. The core of the judgment lies in the legal assessment, specifically addressing the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court references its established case law on effective investigations, emphasizing the need for adequacy, promptness, family involvement, and independence. The decision highlights the shortcomings in the Ukrainian investigation, referencing similar cases where Ukraine was found in violation. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation awarded to the applicant. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is a single judgment on the specific application.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the State’s obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into deaths, even in the absence of direct State involvement. The judgment underscores that investigations must be prompt, adequate, and involve the family of the deceased. The decision also highlights that a failure to address shortcomings previously identified in similar cases can lead to a finding of a violation of Article 2. This ruling serves as a reminder to Ukraine of its duty to ensure that investigations into suspicious deaths are carried out effectively and in accordance with human rights standards. **** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ongoing conflict and potential human rights violations, emphasizing the need for thorough and impartial investigations into any deaths.
CASE OF RUTKOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Rutkovskyy and Others v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on Human Rights in the cases of Rutkovskyy and three other applicants due to the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The Court also found violations regarding other complaints raised by some applicants, based on well-established case-law, and related to the lack of effective remedies for the excessive length of criminal proceedings. The ECHR ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as for costs and expenses. The decision consolidates four applications due to their similar subject matter. The Court found that domestic courts often relied on generalized and repetitive reasoning when extending detention, without adequately considering alternative measures or conducting proceedings with due diligence.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses four applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
* **Facts:** The judgment refers to an appended table that lists the applicants and 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 5 § 3:** The Court referenced previous judgments outlining the principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. It found a breach of Article 5 § 3, citing the excessive length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, referencing similar previous cases against Ukraine.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints raised by some applicants, finding violations based on its well-established case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts of compensation to be awarded to the applicants, considering its case-law and the documents in its possession.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
* Joined the applications.
* Declared the applications admissible.
* Held that there was a breach of Article 5 § 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention.
* Held that there were violations of the Convention regarding other complaints.
* Ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages and costs.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant names, detention periods, specific defects in the detention orders, other complaints, and amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Excessive Length of Pre-trial Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be reasonable in length and that authorities must provide sufficient justification for its extension.
* **Defects in Detention Orders:** The Court highlighted specific defects in the detention orders, such as the fragility and repetitiveness of reasoning, failure to consider alternative measures, and lack of due diligence in conducting proceedings.
* **Other Violations:** The decision acknowledges other potential violations related to the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies, referencing specific previous cases.
* **Compensation:** The judgment sets a precedent for the amounts of compensation to be awarded in similar cases, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
* **** The decision has implications for Ukraine, requiring it to improve its practices regarding pre-trial detention and ensure effective remedies for violations of the Convention.
CASE OF TUNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Tunik and Others v. Ukraine*, concerning inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian prisons. The Court found that the conditions of the applicants’ detention were indeed inadequate, violating Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The ECtHR also addressed other complaints raised by some applicants under the Convention, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants sums ranging from EUR 6,200 to EUR 9,800 for non-pecuniary damage, as well as EUR 250 to some applicants for costs and expenses.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s initiation and notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts, including a list of applicants and details of their applications, followed by the legal analysis. The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 13, referencing previous case-law such as *Melnik v. Ukraine* and *Sukachov v. Ukraine*, which had similar findings. The Court also considered other alleged violations under its established case-law. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation to be paid to the applicants. The judgment includes an appendix with a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, the facilities where they were detained, duration of detention, specific grievances, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Articles 3 and 13 due to inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies. The Court’s reliance on its established case-law and its detailed assessment of the applicants’ grievances, including overcrowding, poor hygiene, and lack of access to basic necessities, highlight the systemic issues within Ukrainian detention facilities. The order for Ukraine to pay compensation to the applicants underscores the State’s responsibility to ensure humane detention conditions and provide effective remedies for violations of human rights. **** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it highlights ongoing issues within its penitentiary system and the need for comprehensive reforms to align with European human rights standards.
CASE OF VOVK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of *Vovk and Others v. Ukraine*:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR ruled that Ukraine violated 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 in the cases of the applicants. The core issue was the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants and the lack of effective domestic remedies to address this. The Court found that the length of the proceedings was not justified and that the applicants did not have access to remedies that could have expedited the process or provided compensation for the delays. As a result, the Court awarded compensation to most of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, except for one applicant who renounced any compensation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications that were joined due to their similar subject matter.
* **Facts:** The facts section briefly outlines that the applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It references the Court’s established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants.
* The Court refers to a previous leading case, *Nechay v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues.
* The Court concludes that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that no effective remedy was available to the applicants.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section deals with just satisfaction. It notes that one applicant waived compensation and then outlines the amounts awarded to the other applicants.
* **Decision:** The Court formally declares the applications admissible, holds that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and specifies the amounts to be paid to the applicants as compensation.
* **Appendix:** A table lists the applications, including dates, applicant details, length of proceedings, and amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Confirmation of Violation:** The judgment confirms that excessively long criminal proceedings without effective domestic remedies constitute a violation of the Convention.
* **Reference to *Nechay v. Ukraine*:** The reference to the *Nechay* case indicates a consistent line of jurisprudence regarding similar issues in Ukraine.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for assessing potential compensation in similar cases.
* **Criteria for Assessing Length of Proceedings:** The judgment reiterates the key criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, which are essential for evaluating potential violations of Article 6 § 1.
* **Appendix Details:** The appendix provides specific details about the length of proceedings and compensation awarded in each case, which can be useful for comparative analysis.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights systemic issues within its judicial system regarding the length of criminal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies. This judgment will likely be important for Ukrainians who are facing similar issues.
