CASE OF KRPELÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Krpelík v. the Czech Republic:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the Czech Republic violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial) in the case of Mr. Oldřich Krpelík, who has an intellectual disability. The Court concluded that Mr. Krpelík’s criminal conviction was unfair because he was not provided legal assistance during pre-trial police interviews and a site visit, despite his vulnerability due to his disability. The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to ensure that Mr. Krpelík fully understood his right to legal representation and the consequences of waiving that right. The domestic courts’ reliance on self-incriminating statements made without legal assistance, coupled with insufficient scrutiny of the waiver of his right to a lawyer, led to an unfair trial overall. The Court awarded Mr. Krpelík EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case, highlighting the applicant’s claim of an unfair trial due to the lack of legal assistance during the initial police interviews and a site visit, considering his intellectual disability.
* **Facts:** Summarizes the factual background, including the applicant’s arrest, pre-trial proceedings, criminal trial, and relevant legal framework and practice.
* **Pre-Trial Proceedings:** Details the events leading up to the trial, including the applicant’s arrest, police questioning, site visit, and charges. It notes that the applicant was informed of his rights but questioned without a lawyer.
* **Criminal Trial:** Describes the trial proceedings, including the applicant’s statements, expert reports on his mental capacity, and the court’s initial acquittal, which was later overturned.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, domestic court practice, and international and European Union material.
* **Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:** Cites articles related to accessibility and access to justice.
* **The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:** References cases and general comments emphasizing the need for procedural accommodations and training for justice officials.
* **Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:** Includes a report on the right of access to justice under Article 13 of the CRPD.
* **Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities:** Adopts International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities regarding, inter alia, Article 13 of the CRPD.
* **European Union:** Cites Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings.
* **The Law:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention:** Presents the applicant’s complaint that his conviction was based on a confession made without legal assistance, violating his right to a fair trial.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the application admissible.
* **Merits:**
* **The parties’ submissions:** Summarizes the arguments made by the applicant and the government.
* **The Court’s assessment:** Analyzes the case based on the general principles of Article 6 of the Convention. It finds that the applicant’s right to legal assistance was improperly restricted and that the trial was unfair.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Discusses the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs and expenses.
* **Damage:** Awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* **Costs and expenses:** Awards the applicant EUR 800 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
* **For These Reasons, The Court:** Formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and outlines the payments to be made by the respondent State.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Vulnerability and Intellectual Disability:** The decision highlights that individuals with intellectual disabilities are considered particularly vulnerable in criminal proceedings, requiring special procedural safeguards.
* **Waiver of Rights:** Any waiver of the right to legal assistance by a vulnerable person must be unequivocal and made with full awareness of the consequences, ensured by the authorities.
* **Positive Obligations of Authorities:** Authorities have a positive obligation to take additional steps to ensure that vulnerable individuals understand their rights, possibly by providing appropriate forms of assistance, such as easy-to-read materials or intermediaries.
* **Fair Trial:** The decision underscores that a fair trial includes not only understanding the nature and consequences of the trial but also being able to sufficiently comprehend the nature of one’s rights and to exercise them effectively.
* **Assessment of Waiver Capacity:** Domestic courts must assess an individual’s capacity to make a valid waiver of their right to legal assistance, not just their capacity to stand trial.
* **Exclusion of Evidence:** Evidence obtained during pre-trial proceedings without legal assistance should be excluded if there was no valid waiver of the right to such assistance.
* **Remedies:** The decision emphasizes that any detriment suffered at the pre-trial stage must be remedied in subsequent proceedings to ensure overall fairness.
This decision reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals in criminal proceedings and provides guidance on how authorities should ensure a fair trial for those with intellectual disabilities.
I hope this helps!
CASE OF T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of T.H. v. the Czech Republic:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a transgender applicant in the Czech Republic who identifies as non-binary and sought to change his personal numerical code (birth number) on his national identity card to reflect a female gender, as a neutral option was not available. Czech law required gender reassignment surgery, including sterilization, for such a change. The Court found that this requirement violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life). The Court emphasized that making legal recognition of a new gender identity conditional on undergoing surgery that entails sterilization forces transgender individuals into an “impossible dilemma,” infringing upon their right to physical integrity.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case’s subject matter: the requirement of sex reassignment surgery for changing the personal numerical code denoting gender.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, including his non-binary gender identity, his refusal to undergo sex reassignment surgery due to concerns about medical complications, and his repeated requests to change his personal numerical code.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Provides an overview of the relevant domestic law and practice, including provisions of the Civil Code, the Specific Health Services Act, and the Population Register Act.
* **European and International Law and Practice:** Includes resolutions and reports from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the European Committee of Social Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
* **The Law:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8 of the Convention:** The applicant complained about the authorities’ refusal to grant his requests to change his “sex/gender marker” and birth number on the grounds that he had not undergone the irreversible surgery required by domestic law for gender reassignment.
* **Admissibility:** The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention.
* **Merits:** Assesses the parties’ submissions, including the applicant’s arguments that the sterilization requirement violates Article 3 and the Government’s arguments that the domestic courts’ decisions were justified.
* **The Court’s assessment:**
* **Scope of the case:** The Court notes at the outset that the applicant relied on both Articles 3 and 8.
* **General principles:** The Court reiterates that the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention extends to gender identity, as a component of personal identity.
* **Application of the general principles to the present case:** The Court observes that, under Czech law, transgender people are able to have their gender reassignment recognized and civil status records amended.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with articles 3 and 8:** Under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8, the applicant complained that he was forced to repeatedly and involuntarily disclose his gender identity (“come out”) every time he had to present his identity documents.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which provides for just satisfaction to the injured party if the Court finds a violation of the Convention.
* **Holds:** Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Violation of Article 8:** The core finding is that requiring gender reassignment surgery, including sterilization, as a condition for legal gender recognition violates Article 8 of the Convention.
* **Positive Obligation:** The Court reiterates the State’s positive obligation to provide quick, transparent, and accessible procedures for changing the registered sex/gender marker of transgender people.
* **Narrow Margin of Appreciation:** The Court emphasizes that States have a narrow margin of appreciation when a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake.
* **Relevance of International Standards:** The Court takes into account international standards and the views of various bodies of the Council of Europe, which have criticized legislation that makes gender recognition conditional on sterilization or other compulsory medical treatment.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
This decision reinforces the importance of respecting the rights of transgender individuals and ensuring that legal gender recognition procedures are in line with human rights standards.
. This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ongoing discussions and reforms related to the rights of transgender individuals and the legal recognition of gender identity.
CASE OF BOROVINSKIKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Borovinskikh and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in a series of cases involving Russian citizens who were prosecuted for expressing anti-war sentiments and support for Ukraine. The applicants were penalized under Russian laws that criminalized “discrediting” the military and spreading “fake news.” The ECHR found that these restrictions on freedom of expression were not justified and were part of a broader effort by Russian authorities to suppress dissent related to the war in Ukraine. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, fair trial principles, and freedom of assembly. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for damages and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine 26 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction over the cases, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. It also asserted jurisdiction over cases originating from Crimea, considering Russia’s control over the region since March 18, 2014.
* **Violation of Article 10:** The Court referenced its prior judgment in *Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia*, which established a pattern of suppressing dissent related to the war in Ukraine. It found that the restrictions on the applicants’ freedom of expression violated Article 10 of the Convention.
* **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations under Articles 5, 6, and 11 of the Convention, based on its established case-law, concerning issues such as unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in trials, and disproportionate measures against participants in public events.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that it was not necessary to rule separately on other complaints, including those under Article 18, as the main legal questions had been addressed.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Restrictions on Freedom of Expression:** The decision highlights that prosecuting individuals for expressing anti-war sentiments or support for Ukraine constitutes a violation of Article 10, particularly when such prosecutions are based on vaguely defined laws like those criminalizing “discrediting” the military.
* **Systemic Suppression of Dissent:** The Court’s reference to the *Novaya Gazeta* case emphasizes that the restrictions were part of a coordinated effort to suppress dissent related to the war in Ukraine, rather than legitimate measures to protect national security.
* **Unlawful Detention and Fair Trial:** The decision underscores the importance of lawful detention procedures and fair trial principles, particularly in administrative offense proceedings.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reaffirms the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and highlights that disproportionate measures against participants in public events can constitute a violation of Article 11.
* **Jurisdiction over Crimea:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over cases from Crimea confirms that Russia is accountable for human rights violations in the region since March 2014.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukrainians, as it addresses the suppression of pro-Ukrainian views and anti-war protests within Russia and Russian-occupied territories, highlighting the human rights implications of the conflict.
CASE OF DMITRIYEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This judgment concerns two applications against Russia regarding restrictions on freedom of expression and, in one case, freedom of association. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of Article 10 of the Convention due to the Russian courts’ failure to properly assess the restrictions in light of the Court’s established case law. The Court also found a violation of Article 11 in connection with the dissolution of an applicant association. The ECtHR asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, including a list of applicants and details of their complaints. The “Law” section addresses the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction. The core of the judgment lies in the analysis of the alleged violation of Article 10, referencing previous similar cases where the Court found violations. It also addresses other alleged violations under well-established case law, specifically regarding Article 11. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and concludes with the Court’s decision, including orders for payment of damages.
The main provisions of the decision are the findings of violations of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association) of the Convention. The Court explicitly states that domestic courts failed to assess the matters in accordance with the principles established in the Court’s case-law. This reinforces the importance of national courts adhering to the ECtHR’s established jurisprudence when dealing with similar cases. The decision also highlights the Court’s continued jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
CASE OF DOMASHNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Domashnev and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights found Russia in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to a lack of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings where there was no prosecuting party. The Court also found violations regarding other complaints based on its well-established case-law, particularly concerning unlawful deprivation of liberty and restrictions on freedom of expression related to public assemblies. These violations stem from events that occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, allowing the Court to maintain jurisdiction. The applicants were awarded sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses multiple applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* It confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases originating before Russia’s exit from the Convention.
* The core finding is a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the lack of a prosecuting party in administrative offense cases, citing the Karelin v. Russia case as a precedent.
* It also identifies violations related to unlawful detention and freedom of expression, referencing previous cases like Butkevich v. Russia and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia.
* The Court decided not to examine separately additional complaints raised in one of the applications, considering that the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* The judgment concludes with an order for Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Impartiality of Tribunals:** The absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offense proceedings is deemed a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1.
* **Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty:** Actions such as unlawful detention of organizers or participants of public assemblies are considered violations.
* **Freedom of Expression:** Restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the context of public assemblies, can constitute a violation.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court retains jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s departure from the Convention.
Let me know if you need more details on any specific aspect of the judgment.
CASE OF DOMOZHIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Domozhirov and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This judgment concerns multiple applications against Russia related to the suppression of public assemblies and freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights found that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly) due to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies, such as arrests and convictions for administrative offenses. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, police searches, and restrictions on media coverage. These violations stem from actions taken before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for the damages suffered.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Russia, with ARTICLE 19 providing third-party comments in one case.
* **Facts:** The judgment consolidates multiple applications concerning disproportionate measures against individuals involved in public assemblies.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted jurisdiction over the cases as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests and convictions, were disproportionate and violated their right to freedom of assembly.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, police searches, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address additional complaints under Articles 6 and 8, given the findings of violations already established.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded specific sums to the applicants as just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and dismissed the remaining claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 11:** The judgment reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and highlights that states must not use disproportionate measures to suppress public assemblies.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision underscores the need for lawful and justified detention, particularly in the context of public assemblies.
* **Fair Proceedings:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of impartiality in administrative proceedings, including the presence of a prosecuting party.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The decision protects the freedom of the media to cover public assemblies without unjustified interference.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The judgment provides a basis for compensation to victims of Convention violations related to freedom of assembly and associated rights.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainians as it highlights the importance of protecting freedom of assembly and expression, principles that are particularly crucial in the context of ongoing conflict and political tensions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need to uphold human rights standards even in challenging circumstances.
CASE OF KALINYCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Kalinychev and Others v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled against Russia in the case of Kalinychev and Others v. Russia, concerning multiple applications related to the suppression of public assemblies and freedom of expression. The Court found that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly, due to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies. These measures included arrests, administrative offenses, and convictions. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in legal proceedings, restrictions on freedom of expression, and other breaches under the Convention and its Protocols. The cases involved various forms of protest, including rallies in support of political figures, protests against the war in Ukraine, and solo demonstrations. The ECHR has awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia, which were then joined due to their similar subject matter.
* **Facts:** The facts relate to complaints from individuals who faced disproportionate measures for organizing or participating in public assemblies.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction over the cases, as the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests and convictions for administrative offenses, violated Article 11 of the Convention, which protects freedom of assembly.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified other violations under the Convention and its Protocols, based on well-established case law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to examine additional complaints under Articles 6 and 13, as the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants the sums indicated in the appended table as compensation for damages and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 11:** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and highlights that measures taken against participants must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The judgment underscores the prohibition of unlawful detention, particularly in the context of public assemblies.
* **Lack of Impartiality:** The decision emphasizes the need for impartiality in legal proceedings, especially in administrative offense cases.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The judgment highlights the protection of freedom of expression, including the right to protest and express political views, even in solo demonstrations.
* **Compensation:** The decision awards compensation to the applicants, providing a tangible remedy for the violations they experienced.
**** The decision is related to Russia, but it has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as some of the cases involved protests against the war in Ukraine. The decision highlights the importance of protecting freedom of expression and assembly, even in the context of political protests.
CASE OF KHUBIYEV v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Khubiyev v. Russia, concerning the applicant’s complaints about inadequate conditions of detention under a strict imprisonment regime, specifically his routine handcuffing. The Court found that Russia had violated Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The ECtHR determined it had jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction and did not find it necessary to examine the applicant’s remaining complaints.
The decision begins with the procedural history, outlining the application’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaints regarding his detention conditions and routine handcuffing. The legal analysis addresses the Court’s jurisdiction and the alleged violation of Article 3, referencing previous case law on similar issues. The Court concludes that the applicant’s rights were violated due to routine handcuffing. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, determining that the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the text provided.
The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that routine handcuffing of a detainee constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. This reaffirms the Court’s stance on the treatment of prisoners and sets a precedent for similar cases involving detention conditions and the use of restraints.
CASE OF KREPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Krepkin and Others v. Russia*, concerning six applications related to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants complained about their arrest and conviction for criminal offenses for participating in unauthorized rallies, alleging violations of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly). The ECtHR found that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. Additionally, some applicants raised other complaints under the Convention, which the Court also found admissible and in violation, referring to its well-established case-law. The Court decided that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints regarding the fairness of criminal proceedings, considering the main legal issues had been addressed. The Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 8,000 to EUR 12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 11, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, remaining complaints, application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), and the operative provisions. The decision refers to established principles in the Court’s case-law regarding freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference, citing leading cases such as *Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania*, *Oya Ataman v. Turkey*, *Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova*, *Frumkin v. Russia*, *Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia*, and *Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia*. The Court explicitly stated that it has jurisdiction to examine the applications because the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 11 due to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies and the recognition of other violations based on the Court’s well-established case-law. The Court’s reliance on previous judgments, particularly *Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia*, indicates a consistent approach to similar cases involving freedom of assembly in Russia. The decision also highlights the Court’s continued jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, providing a legal avenue for individuals who experienced violations during that period.
CASE OF KULYAMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the ECHR judgment in the case of Kulyamina and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of multiple applicants who alleged torture or inhuman and degrading treatment by State officials. The Court found that Russian authorities failed to conduct effective investigations into these allegations. Additionally, in one case (Frenkel), the Court found a violation related to restrictions on freedom of expression, specifically concerning interference with journalistic activities. The Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court addressed complaints of ill-treatment by State officials and the lack of effective investigations. It referenced its established case law, emphasizing the State’s duty to protect individuals in custody and the importance of investigating allegations of ill-treatment. The Court found violations of both the substantive (the ill-treatment itself) and procedural (failure to investigate) aspects of Article 3.
* **Other Violations:** In the case of applicant Frenkel, the Court found additional violations related to restrictions on freedom of expression, citing interference with journalistic activities.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court considered just satisfaction and awarded monetary compensation to the applicants, dismissing the remainder of their claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reinforces that when individuals allege ill-treatment while under the control of the police or similar authority, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the use of force was not excessive.
* **Duty to Investigate:** The decision highlights the State’s obligation to conduct thorough criminal investigations into credible allegations of ill-treatment, including assessing the necessity and proportionality of any force used by law enforcement.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The judgment underscores that actions by authorities that interfere with journalistic activities can constitute a violation of freedom of expression, particularly when the use of force is deemed unlawful and disproportionate.
**** The decision is related to Russia, but the principles and standards articulated in the judgment regarding ill-treatment, investigations, and freedom of expression are relevant to all member states of the Council of Europe and can be used in cases involving similar issues.
CASE OF LUKOMSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Lukomskaya and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in a series of cases involving disproportionate measures taken against individuals participating in solo demonstrations. The applicants complained about the termination of their demonstrations, arrests, and convictions for administrative offenses. The Court found that these measures were not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus infringed upon the applicants’ freedom of expression. Additionally, the Court identified other violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on freedom of assembly, awarding compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Violation of Article 10:** The Court found that the measures against the applicants for participating in solo demonstrations were disproportionate and violated their right to freedom of expression.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in proceedings, and restrictions on freedom of assembly, referencing its well-established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants, considering the findings in paragraphs 9-11.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages, considering the documents in its possession and its case-law.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Freedom of Expression:** The decision reinforces the importance of protecting freedom of expression, even in the context of solo demonstrations.
* **Proportionality:** Any measures taken against demonstrators must be proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision highlights the impermissibility of detaining individuals solely for the purpose of drawing up administrative offense records.
* **Impartiality of Tribunals:** The decision underscores the need for impartiality in administrative proceedings, particularly regarding the absence of a prosecuting party.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision emphasizes the need to avoid disproportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
**** The decision has implications for Ukrainian citizens who may have experienced similar violations of their rights in Russia or in territories under Russian control before September 16, 2022. It confirms that even after Russia’s exclusion from the Council of Europe, the ECHR retains jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before that date.
CASE OF LYUBOVETSKYY v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Lyubovetskyy v. Ukraine decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the unlawful detention of Mr. Lyubovetskyy. The core issue was that domestic courts initially applied less favorable criminal law, leading to his detention beyond the period that would have been applicable under the correct, more lenient law. Although he was eventually released, the delay in applying the correct law resulted in over five years of unjust detention. The Court also found that Mr. Lyubovetskyy did not have an enforceable right to compensation under Ukrainian law for this unlawful detention.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case centered on the applicant’s claim that his detention was unlawful due to the application of less favorable law and the subsequent denial of compensation for that detention.
* **Background:** Mr. Lyubovetskyy was initially convicted in 2006, but the conviction was later quashed and remitted for re-examination. He was ultimately sentenced under the Criminal Code of 2001, which had longer statutory limitation periods than the Criminal Code of 1960, which was in force when the offenses were committed.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** While domestic courts eventually released Mr. Lyubovetskyy, recognizing the error in applying the law, his claim for compensation for the period of unlawful detention was ultimately rejected.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible, rejecting the Government’s argument that it was submitted too late.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court found that Mr. Lyubovetskyy’s detention was unforeseeable and arbitrary because the domestic court did not apply the more favorable law at the outset.
* **Article 5 § 5 Violation:** The Court held that Ukraine failed to secure Mr. Lyubovetskyy’s right to compensation for the unlawful detention, as there was no effective remedy under domestic law.
* **Article 41:** No compensation was awarded as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Application of More Favorable Law:** The decision reinforces the principle that individuals should benefit from the more lenient law applicable between the time of the offense and the final sentence.
* **Lawfulness of Detention:** The ECtHR emphasized that detention must be lawful, foreseeable, and non-arbitrary, aligning with both national and international legal standards.
* **Right to Compensation:** The judgment highlights the obligation of states to provide an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention, particularly when a violation of Article 5 of the Convention is established.
* **Legal Certainty:** The decision underscores the importance of legal certainty in deprivation of liberty cases, ensuring that the conditions for detention are clearly defined and foreseeable.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and highlights the importance of applying the correct, most favorable law in criminal proceedings and ensuring that individuals have access to compensation for unlawful detention.
CASE OF RYASNOVA AND X v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Ryasnova and X v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Russia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for family life) due to the handling of a paternity dispute. The case involved a mother and daughter (Ryasnova and X) who claimed that a deceased wealthy businessman was the daughter’s father. Despite initial DNA evidence suggesting paternity, domestic courts in Russia declared the evidence inadmissible for procedural reasons and failed to pursue further conclusive DNA testing. The European Court ruled that the Russian courts did not strike a fair balance between the interests of the parties, especially considering the child’s best interests, by preventing a clear determination of paternity. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment starts by outlining the case’s procedural history, including the date of application and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the factual background, detailing the applicants’ claims and the domestic court proceedings related to establishing paternity.
* **Law:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The Court analyzed the complaint under Article 8, referencing previous case law on similar issues. It concluded that the domestic courts failed to ensure a fair balance of interests by not pursuing conclusive DNA evidence.
* **Remaining Complaint:** A complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was deemed inadmissible.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court addressed the issue of just satisfaction, awarding specific amounts for damages and costs.
* **Decision:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s unanimous decision, declaring the Article 8 complaint admissible, finding a violation of Article 8, and outlining the compensation to be paid by Russia.
* **Appendix:** Provides a table with details of the application, including applicant information, a summary of the factual circumstances, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 8:** The core finding is the violation of Article 8 due to the domestic courts’ failure to ensure a fair and effective process in establishing paternity, particularly by not pursuing available DNA evidence.
* **State’s Positive Obligation:** The judgment emphasizes the State’s positive obligation to strike a fair balance between the competing interests of parties in family law proceedings, with due regard to the best interests of the child.
* **Importance of Clear Evidence:** The Court highlighted the importance of obtaining factually clear and procedurally reliable scientific evidence in paternity disputes.
* **Precedent:** The judgment reinforces existing case law regarding the scope of Article 8 in family life matters, particularly concerning the establishment of legal parentage.
This decision underscores the importance of fair procedures and the active pursuit of clear evidence in family law cases, especially those concerning the rights and interests of children.
