Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Korniyets and Others v. Ukraine.
Here’s the breakdown:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to unlawful searches of the applicants’ homes. The Court highlighted that these searches were conducted without prior judicial authorization and lacked adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. The domestic law did not provide an effective way for the applicants to challenge the lawfulness of these searches. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the second applicant, Ms. Zhabo, due to ill-treatment by police during a search and the ineffective investigation into her allegations.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the core issues, focusing on the lack of judicial warrants for home searches and the absence of effective remedies, as well as allegations of ill-treatment and ineffective investigation.
* **Facts:** Details the specific circumstances of each applicant’s case, including the searches conducted, items seized, and subsequent legal proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the pertinent Ukrainian constitutional and criminal procedure provisions regarding the inviolability of the home and conditions for searches.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 8 Violation:** Focuses on whether the searches were “in accordance with the law,” pursuing a “legitimate aim,” and “necessary in a democratic society.” It emphasizes the need for clear and precise domestic law with adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference.
* **Article 13 Violation:** Addresses the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the applicants’ complaints under Article 8.
* **Article 3 Violation:** Examines the allegations of ill-treatment of the second applicant and the effectiveness of the investigation into those allegations.
* **Article 41:** Addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention.
* **Separate Opinion of Judge Serghides:** Judge Serghides expressed disagreement with the Court’s decision not to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Absence of Prior Judicial Warrant and Adequate Safeguards:** The decision underscores the importance of prior judicial authorization for searches and the necessity of effective procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrariness, especially when searches are conducted without a warrant.
* **Ineffective Remedy:** The lack of a possibility to appeal against a search warrant, whether issued before or after the search, is a critical point. The ex parte nature of the review proceedings, without the applicant’s participation, is deemed insufficient.
* **Ill-treatment and Investigation:** The decision highlights the state’s obligation to provide a convincing explanation for injuries sustained while a person is under police control and to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding the procedures for conducting searches and providing remedies for individuals whose rights have been violated. It emphasizes the need for legislative and practical reforms to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
