CASE OF ALAKHVERDYAN v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found that Ukraine violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b-d) of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. This violation stemmed from the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s review of Mr. Alakhverdyan’s conviction following a previous ECtHR judgment that had already identified a violation due to the use of a confession obtained without legal representation. While the Supreme Court excluded some evidence tainted by the initial violation, the ECtHR found that it failed to adequately explain why other remaining evidence, particularly the testimony of a key witness, was not also tainted. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s review process was deficient and that Mr. Alakhverdyan was deprived of a fair trial, specifically lacking adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense in light of the changed evidentiary landscape.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s focus on the fairness of the Supreme Court’s review of the applicant’s conviction.
* **Facts:** Details the background of the case, including the initial criminal investigation, Mr. Alakhverdyan’s confession, the initial trial and conviction, and the first proceedings before the ECtHR.
* **Initial Proceedings before the Court:** Summarizes the ECtHR’s 2019 judgment, which found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3(c) due to restrictions on Mr. Alakhverdyan’s right to defense during his initial confession.
* **Review Proceedings in the Supreme Court:** Describes the Supreme Court’s review process, including the exclusion of some evidence but the ultimate upholding of the conviction. It also highlights the dissenting opinions within the Supreme Court.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant provisions of Ukrainian criminal procedure code and Supreme Court case law concerning review proceedings.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 of the Convention:** This section contains the core legal analysis.
* **Scope of the case:** Defines the scope of the complaints that the Court will examine.
* **Admissibility:** Assesses whether the application meets the criteria for the Court to hear the case.
* **Merits:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses whether the facts of the case disclose a violation of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs.
* **Operative Provisions:** States the Court’s decision, including the finding of a violation and the order for compensation.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Applicability of Article 6 to Review Proceedings:** The Court affirmed that Article 6 (right to a fair trial) can apply to review proceedings, especially when the Supreme Court undertakes a “re-examination” of the case by excluding evidence and assessing the remaining evidence to determine guilt.
* **”Tainted Evidence” and the Need for a Full Rehearing:** The judgment underscores the importance of excluding all evidence tainted by an initial violation of the Convention. When significant evidence is excluded, the Court emphasizes that a full rehearing is generally necessary to ensure a fair trial, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the remaining evidence and the opportunity for the defendant to prepare an adequate defense.
* **Interpretation of Previous ECtHR Judgments:** The Court highlighted the importance of domestic courts accurately interpreting and implementing ECtHR judgments. In this case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the initial ECtHR judgment was found to be not entirely in line with the Court’s conclusions.
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The Court found that the applicant was deprived of the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence in the proceedings complained of. He had been unable to predict the scope of the review that would be conducted by the Supreme Court or what evidence would be excluded or would remain. He therefore could not foresee how the overall assessment of the case would be affected by the review and therefore could not construct his line of argument.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding how its Supreme Court handles review proceedings following judgments from the ECtHR, especially in cases involving tainted evidence and potential violations of the right to a fair trial. It highlights the need for a thorough reassessment of evidence and the importance of ensuring the defendant’s ability to adequately prepare their defense in such situations.
CASE OF S.O. v. SPAIN
This European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in the case of S.O. v. Spain addresses the issue of informed consent in the context of breast-conserving surgery and its impact on a woman’s private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant claimed that she had not given valid consent for the removal of her nipple-areola complex (NAC) during the surgery. The Court found that the domestic courts failed to adequately address the applicant’s complaint regarding the absence of informed consent, particularly concerning the potential impact on her self-image and sexual life. The ECtHR concluded that Spain had violated Article 8 by not ensuring sufficient respect for the applicant’s autonomy in the practical implementation of its existing legal framework on informed consent.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a summary of the facts, including the applicant’s medical history, the surgical procedure, and her subsequent complaints to domestic authorities. The judgment then details the relevant legal framework in Spain concerning patient autonomy and informed consent, as well as relevant provisions of the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The Court proceeds to analyze the alleged violation of Article 8, examining the admissibility of the application and the merits of the case based on the submissions of both the applicant and the Spanish government. Finally, the judgment concludes with the Court’s assessment, finding a violation of Article 8 and addressing the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction.
The main provisions of the decision highlight the importance of informed consent in medical procedures that affect a person’s physical and mental well-being. The Court emphasizes that even when a surgical modification is necessary during an operation, doctors have a duty to inform patients about potential consequences, especially those with significant repercussions for self-image and sexual life. The judgment underscores that domestic courts must thoroughly scrutinize allegations of insufficient informed consent, ensuring that the domestic system adequately responds to such complaints. This decision reinforces the State’s obligation to ensure the effective functioning of its regulatory framework, protecting patients’ autonomy and right to private life.
CASE OF BENYUKH v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Benyukh v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The case concerned a life prisoner’s inadequate dental treatment, specifically a 19-month delay in receiving free dentures. The Court emphasized the State’s duty of care towards prisoners, particularly regarding dental care. While the applicant eventually received dentures through an NGO, the Court highlighted that this was not due to the authorities’ initiative but rather external intervention. The lack of an effective remedy for the inadequate treatment also constituted a violation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the applicant’s medical condition, the prison’s request for free dentures, and the municipal authorities’ refusal due to funding issues.
* It addresses the Government’s claim of abuse of the right of application, dismissing it.
* The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 3, finding that the legislative provisions for free dentures were rendered ineffective by administrative and financial obstacles.
* It emphasizes that the eventual provision of dentures by an NGO did not absolve the State of its responsibility.
* The judgment also addresses the violation of Article 13, noting the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant’s complaint.
* Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Duty of Care:** The decision reinforces the State’s obligation to ensure adequate medical care for prisoners, particularly dental care.
* **Ineffective Legislation:** The Court highlights that legislative provisions are insufficient if they are not implemented effectively due to administrative or financial obstacles.
* **NGO Intervention:** The fact that an NGO provided the necessary treatment does not excuse the State’s failure to fulfill its obligations.
* **Lengthy Delays:** Significant delays in providing necessary medical treatment can constitute a violation of Article 3.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision underscores the importance of providing an effective remedy for prisoners who experience inadequate medical treatment.
This decision serves as a reminder of the State’s responsibility to ensure the well-being of prisoners and to provide effective mechanisms for addressing their grievances.
The decision is related to Ukraine.
CASE OF BYSTRÝ v. SLOVAKIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Bystrý v. Slovakia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Slovakia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to ill-treatment by police officers and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter. The case concerned two applicants, father and son, who sustained injuries during a police intervention in a Roma community during Easter 2020. The Court determined that the force used against both applicants was disproportionate, and the subsequent investigation was inadequate as it relied heavily on the police’s version of events and a medical expert report, without properly considering the applicants’ evidence. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the events of April 12, 2020, where police intervened in a Roma community in Bardejov for violating COVID-19 restrictions, leading to confrontations and injuries to the applicants.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3 of the Convention:** Examines the applicants’ claims of unwarranted and disproportionate force by the police and the lack of a thorough investigation.
* The Court references its established case-law principles from previous judgments.
* It assesses the proportionality of the force used against each applicant individually.
* The Court concludes that the injuries sustained by both applicants met the severity threshold to constitute ill-treatment under Article 3.
* It finds that the investigation into the incident was not effective, as the authorities did not adequately analyze the evidence and relied excessively on the police’s version of events.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicants’ claims for compensation 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 aspects.
* Orders the respondent State to pay specified amounts to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
* Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The ruling reinforces the principle that law enforcement must exercise restraint and proportionality when using force, even in situations where individuals are resisting arrest or violating public order regulations.
* It highlights the importance of conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of police misconduct, ensuring that investigations do not overly rely on the accounts of law enforcement and that all evidence, including the victim’s perspective, is carefully considered.
* The decision underscores the State’s obligation to ensure that investigations into potential ill-treatment are effective, meaning they must be prompt, thorough, independent, and allow for the effective participation of victims.
CASE OF GALYTSKYY v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Galytskyy v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the ill-treatment of the applicant, Mr. Galytskyy, while he was held in a pre-trial detention center (SIZO) and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints. The Court determined that Mr. Galytskyy sustained a hip injury while under State control, for which no plausible explanation was provided other than the alleged ill-treatment. The investigation into his complaints was delayed significantly, and essential documents were lost or destroyed, indicating a lack of will to establish the truth. Consequently, the Court ruled violations under both the procedural and substantive limbs of Article 3.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The case addresses allegations of ill-treatment by staff members at the Kryvyi Rih SIZO and the ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation into related complaints.
* **Factual Background:** Mr. Galytskyy was detained in December 2007. He alleged severe beating by officers at the Kryvyi Rih SIZO, resulting in a hip fracture. He claimed he received no assistance for three days and was warned against complaining.
* **Domestic Investigation:** Despite numerous complaints, a criminal investigation was repeatedly refused until a court order in 2014. The investigation was later discontinued due to lost records and conflicting statements.
* **Court’s Assessment:** The ECtHR found the Government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies closely linked to the merits of the complaint. The Court highlighted the significant delay in launching a full-fledged investigation and the loss of essential documents. It also emphasized that the applicant’s request for victim status was rejected without justification.
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court found a violation of Article 3 under both its procedural limb (failure to conduct an effective investigation) and its substantive limb (ill-treatment).
* **Article 13 Complaint:** The Court determined that there was no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as the main legal questions had already been addressed under Article 3.
* **Article 41 Application:** The applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded EUR 16,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for legal representation costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision reinforces that the State bears the burden of providing a plausible explanation for injuries sustained while an individual is in their custody, especially when the individual had no reported injuries upon entering detention.
* **Effective Investigation:** The decision underscores the importance of prompt and thorough investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by State authorities. Delays and loss of essential documents can be indicative of a lack of will to establish the truth.
* **Medical Examination:** The judgment reiterates that a medical examination is a crucial safeguard against ill-treatment of detained persons from the outset of their deprivation of liberty.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
CASE OF MARKETTRANS, PP v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Markettrans, Pp 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 (protection of property) to the Convention. The case concerned a company, Markettrans, which had purchased a tourist base from a trade union organization. Ukrainian courts later invalidated the sale, returning the property to the State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPFU). The ECtHR ruled that this deprivation of property was disproportionate, considering that Markettrans had bought the property in good faith, the State had taken a long time to reclaim the property, and the State did not demonstrate a compelling public interest need for the specific property.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the historical context of trade union property in Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
* It details the facts of the case, focusing on the purchase of the tourist base by Markettrans, the subsequent legal challenge by the prosecutor, and the decisions of the Ukrainian courts.
* The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
* The core of the judgment addresses the merits of the case, analyzing whether there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court examines the lawfulness of the interference, the public interest justification, and the proportionality of the measures taken.
* The judgment refers to similar previous cases, such as Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine and Federation of Trade Unions of the Chernihiv Region, underlining the systematic nature of the problem.
* Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding Markettrans EUR 50,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Disproportionate Burden:** The key takeaway is the Court’s emphasis on the disproportionate burden placed on Markettrans. Even if the State had a legitimate claim to the property, the circumstances of the case – the good faith purchase, the State’s delay, and the lack of a specific public interest justification – made the deprivation of property a violation of the Convention.
* **State’s Duty of Diligence:** The Court highlights that the State should have been aware of the property transfers through its own registration systems and should have acted more promptly to protect its interests.
* **Relevance of “Good Faith”:** The judgment underscores the importance of whether the applicant acted in good faith when acquiring the property.
* **Lack of Specific Public Interest:** The Court criticizes the Government for failing to demonstrate a concrete public interest served by reclaiming the specific property. A general reference to restoring State property rights was insufficient.
* **Compensation:** The Court’s decision to award a lump sum for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage reflects the difficulty in precisely calculating the losses in such cases.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it highlights a systemic issue regarding the restitution of trade union property and the need for clear legal frameworks and due diligence by the State in protecting its property interests without unduly infringing on the rights of private parties.
CASE OF ORŁOWSKI v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the Orłowski v. Poland decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights found Poland in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on the applicant, Leszek Orłowski. While the Court acknowledged that some measures of the regime were alleviated over time, the routine strip searches conducted between November 2020 and July 2022 were deemed unnecessary and caused the applicant undue suffering and humiliation. The Court emphasized that these searches were not linked to specific security needs or suspicions, and therefore, the authorities failed to justify them as necessary for maintaining prison security. The applicant did not seek any financial compensation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the case’s background, including the applicant’s criminal history and the repeated extensions of the “dangerous detainee” regime.
* It references previous applications by the same applicant regarding similar issues, which were resolved through friendly settlements or unilateral declarations by the Polish government.
* The Court then assesses the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, focusing on the period after June 2019.
* The judgment highlights the amendments to Polish law that allowed for modifications to the security measures applied to detainees.
* The Court distinguishes between periods when routine strip searches were discontinued and the period between November 2020 and July 2022 when they were systematically applied.
* The judgment references previous case law, particularly Piechowicz v. Poland and Horych v. Poland, to establish the principles regarding strip searches and their impact on detainees.
* The Court concludes that the routine strip searches during the specified period constituted a violation of Article 3, considering the cumulative effects of the “dangerous detainee” regime.
* Finally, the judgment addresses Article 41 of the Convention, noting that the applicant did not claim just satisfaction, and thus no compensation was awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that while strip searches can be legitimate for prison security, they must be justified by specific security needs or suspicions.
* Systematic, routine strip searches, especially when applied daily or multiple times a day, are likely to be considered a violation of Article 3, particularly when other strict surveillance measures are in place.
* The judgment emphasizes the importance of assessing the cumulative effects of security measures on detainees and ensuring that they do not cause unnecessary suffering or humiliation.
* The decision highlights the need for authorities to demonstrate that strip searches are necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of ensuring prison security, rather than being applied as a matter of course.
