CASE OF UKRAINE AND THE NETHERLANDS v. RUSSIA
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision based on the text you provided.
### Essence of the Decision
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) addresses the jurisdictional issues related to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, particularly concerning events in the “DPR” and “LPR” regions and military attacks. The Court finds that Russia’s jurisdiction continued in these areas until at least September 16, 2022, due to its effective control. It also asserts jurisdiction over complaints arising from actions by Russian authorities within Russia and in areas of Ukraine under Russian armed forces’ control. The Court emphasizes that military attacks by Russia, aimed at acquiring control over Ukrainian territory, fall within its jurisdiction, dismissing Russia’s preliminary objections. The decision underscores the importance of upholding human rights and international law, especially considering the scale and nature of the conflict.
### Structure and Main Provisions
The decision is structured around determining the extent of Russia’s jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the conflict in Ukraine.
* **Continuing Jurisdiction in “DPR” and “LPR”:** The Court concludes that Russia maintained effective control over these regions until September 16, 2022, due to the absence of decreased control and the formalization of control through purported annexation and retroactive application of Russian law.
* **Jurisdiction in Respect of Application No. 11055/22:** This section addresses complaints about actions by Russian authorities within Russia (filtration processes, transfer and adoption of children) and in Ukraine. The Court asserts jurisdiction over actions in areas controlled by Russian armed forces.
* **Jurisdiction in Respect of Military Attacks:** The Court examines whether the alleged administrative practice of military attacks from 2014 to 2022 falls within Russia’s jurisdiction. It emphasizes that these attacks were aimed at acquiring control over Ukrainian territory.
* **Relationship between the Convention and International Humanitarian Law:** The Court addresses the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and international humanitarian law, particularly in circumstances where no derogation under Article 15 of the Convention has been lodged.
### Main Provisions for Use
The most important provisions of this decision for its use are:
* **Affirmation of Continuing Jurisdiction:** The decision clearly states that Russia’s jurisdiction continued in the “DPR” and “LPR” regions until September 16, 2022, which is crucial for holding Russia accountable for human rights violations during this period.
* **Establishment of Jurisdiction over Military Attacks:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over military attacks aimed at acquiring control over Ukrainian territory is significant.
* **Attribution of Acts:** The decision attributes the acts and omissions of both the Russian military and the separatists to the Russian Federation, reinforcing the basis for accountability.
**** This decision is highly relevant to Ukraine, as it directly addresses Russia’s jurisdiction over various actions and events in Ukrainian territory. It provides a legal basis for holding Russia accountable for human rights violations and military attacks, offering potential avenues for redress for Ukrainian victims.
