CASE OF MALYEYEV v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Malyeyev v. Ukraine decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (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 the failure of domestic authorities to provide Yuriy Malyeyev, a Chernobyl clean-up participant, with free medication to which he was entitled under Ukrainian law. The Court determined that this failure, resulting from insufficient state funding, constituted an unjustified interference with his property rights. While the applicant also complained about the lack of medication in 2012 and 2013, the Court only considered the period between April and December 2011, finding that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies for the subsequent years. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,400 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses the failure to provide free medication as required by Ukrainian law to a person affected by the Chernobyl disaster.
* **Background:** The applicant, a participant in the Chernobyl clean-up, was entitled to free medication under Ukrainian law. Due to funding shortages, he was often denied this medication.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The applicant’s claims against local authorities and the pharmacy were dismissed by Ukrainian courts, which cited insufficient state funding.
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible for the period between April and December 2011, dismissing the Government’s objections regarding the lack of significant disadvantage. However, the application was deemed inadmissible for the period between 2012 and 2013 due to the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** The Court found that the denial of medication constituted an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court emphasized that domestic courts did not rely on any legal provision that granted the authorities discretion to reduce or refuse the supply of the free medications in question or made their supply conditional on budgetary transfers.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,400 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, rejecting the claim for costs and expenses due to a lack of evidence.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Property Rights:** The decision confirms that the failure to provide legally mandated benefits, such as free medication, can constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
* **Importance of Domestic Law:** The Court emphasized that the applicant was entitled to the benefits under domestic law, and the authorities’ failure to provide them was not based on any legal provision allowing for discretion or conditionality.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The decision highlights the importance of exhausting all available domestic remedies before applying to the ECtHR. The Court rejected part of the application because the applicant had not pursued separate legal proceedings for the denial of medication in 2012 and 2013.
* **Significant Disadvantage:** The Court considered the applicant’s disability, modest pension, and the importance of the medication for his health when determining that he had suffered a significant disadvantage, making the application admissible.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, particularly those entitled to social benefits under domestic law. It underscores the state’s obligation to provide these benefits and the potential for violations of the Convention when it fails to do so due to funding shortages.
CASE OF SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Sargsyan v. Armenia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the ill-treatment of Mr. Harutyun Sargsyan while in police custody and the subsequent ineffective investigation into his allegations. The Court determined that the Armenian government failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries sustained by Sargsyan during his detention. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by Armenian authorities was deemed neither impartial, thorough, nor prompt, failing to meet the standards required by Article 3. The Court also dismissed the government’s preliminary objection regarding the six-month rule for lodging complaints. As a result, the Court awarded Sargsyan compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the core issue: the applicant’s claims of ill-treatment in police custody and the inadequacy of the subsequent investigation.
* **Facts:** This part details the timeline of events, from the applicant’s initial detention as a witness to the various stages of investigation and court appeals. It highlights the injuries observed on the applicant and the shortcomings identified in the investigation process.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** This section presents the government’s arguments, the Court’s analysis, and its findings regarding the ill-treatment and the investigation’s effectiveness.
* **Application of Article 41:** This part addresses the applicant’s claims for compensation and the Court’s decision on the amounts to be awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* Declares the application admissible.
* Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural limbs.
* Orders the respondent State to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and costs.
* Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 3:** The Court explicitly states that the ill-treatment suffered by Sargsyan constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the Convention.
* **Ineffective Investigation:** The Court emphasizes that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations was not impartial, thorough, or prompt, thus violating the procedural aspect of Article 3.
* **Government’s Failure:** The Court rejects the government’s explanation for the applicant’s injuries and criticizes the reliance on police officer statements during the investigation.
* **Compensation:** The applicant is awarded EUR 11,700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
This decision underscores the importance of conducting impartial and thorough investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement, and it reinforces the state’s obligation to provide plausible explanations for injuries sustained while in custody.
