CASE OF OPALENKO v. UKRAINE
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Opalenko v. Ukraine.
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the case of Mr. Opalenko, who complained about violations of his rights during criminal proceedings for murder in Ukraine. He alleged that his right to a lawyer was breached at the beginning of the proceedings, a key witness was not re-examined during the final retrial, and the proceedings were excessively lengthy. The Court found no violation regarding the right to a lawyer, emphasizing that the domestic courts had sufficiently addressed the initial lack of legal assistance. However, the ECtHR did find a violation due to the excessive length of the proceedings, which lasted over seven years. The Court rejected his claims for pecuniary damage but awarded him EUR 900 for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, which includes complaints about the right to a lawyer, the examination of witnesses, and the length of proceedings. It then presents the facts, detailing the applicant’s arrest, initial confession, retraction of confession, and the various stages of the trial and retrials. The judgment refers to the relevant legal framework, including articles of the Ukrainian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court then assesses the alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention, specifically focusing on the right to a fair trial, the right to legal assistance, and the right to examine witnesses. The Court’s assessment includes admissibility and merits considerations, referencing relevant case law to establish principles for evaluating the fairness of proceedings when access to a lawyer is restricted. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding damages for non-pecuniary loss due to the excessive length of proceedings but rejecting claims for pecuniary damage and costs. A partly dissenting opinion by Judge Serghides is annexed, expressing disagreement with the Court’s findings on the violations of the right to a lawyer and the examination of witnesses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
Several provisions of this decision are particularly important:
* **Right to a Lawyer:** The judgment reiterates the importance of access to a lawyer from the moment a person is taken into custody and the conditions under which this right may be temporarily restricted (“compelling reasons”).
* **Fairness Assessment:** The decision outlines the factors considered when assessing the overall fairness of criminal proceedings, especially when there has been a restriction on access to legal advice.
* **Length of Proceedings:** The judgment underscores that excessively lengthy proceedings can violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly when the case is relatively simple and involves repeated re-examination.
* **Remedying Defects:** The decision clarifies that domestic courts must sufficiently remedy defects, such as the initial lack of legal assistance, to ensure the overall fairness of the trial.
* **Evidential Scrutiny:** The ECtHR emphasized that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a domestic court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine, so it can be used in cases related to Ukraine.
CASE OF SILES CABRERA v. SPAIN
Here’s a breakdown of the Siles Cabrera v. Spain decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Spain did not violate Article 8 of the Convention (right to family life) by refusing to grant a Bolivian national, Mr. Siles Cabrera, a residence permit. The permit was sought based on his social integration as the father of a disabled child. Spanish authorities denied the permit because he didn’t demonstrate sufficient means of subsistence independent of welfare benefits. The ECtHR found that Spanish courts adequately considered the family’s circumstances and that the decision struck a fair balance between the individual’s interests and the state’s right to control immigration. The Court emphasized that Spain was not obligated to grant a specific type of residence permit and that Mr. Siles Cabrera had other potential avenues for regularizing his status.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Outlines the case’s subject matter – the refusal of a residence permit.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, his son’s health condition, the family’s situation in Spain, the application for a residence permit, and the subsequent court proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Summarizes the relevant Spanish laws and court precedents regarding immigration, residence permits, and financial resource requirements.
* **The Law:** Presents the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, the parties’ arguments, and the Court’s assessment.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* Reiterates general principles regarding states’ rights to control immigration and the Convention’s lack of guarantee for the right to reside in a particular country.
* Acknowledges the existence of “family life” between the applicant, his son, and his wife.
* Considers the applicant’s situation in Spain, noting his irregular status and the absence of imminent removal proceedings.
* Examines whether Spain complied with its positive obligations under Article 8, focusing on the legal basis for the refusal and the balancing of individual and public interests.
* Concludes that Spain struck a fair balance and did not overstep its margin of appreciation.
* **Conclusion:** Declares the application admissible but finds no violation of Article 8.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Margin of Appreciation:** The decision reaffirms that states have a wide margin of appreciation in immigration matters, especially concerning economic and social strategies.
* **Sufficient Means of Subsistence:** The case clarifies that reliance on welfare benefits alone may not satisfy the “sufficient means of subsistence” criterion for residence permits, particularly when the applicant has been relying on such benefits for a long time.
* **Consideration of Family Circumstances:** While states have discretion, domestic courts must genuinely consider the applicant’s personal and family circumstances, including the best interests of children.
* **Alternative Avenues:** The existence of other potential avenues for regularizing one’s status can be a factor in assessing whether a state has complied with its obligations under Article 8.
* **No Guarantee of a Specific Permit:** The ECtHR reiterates that Article 8 does not guarantee the right to obtain a specific type of residence permit.
This decision highlights the balance the ECtHR seeks to strike between a state’s sovereign right to control immigration and its obligations to respect family life under the Convention.
CASE OF Y.K. v. CROATIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Y.K. v. Croatia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Croatia violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity, Y.K. The Croatian authorities repeatedly refused to allow Y.K. access to the international protection procedure, effectively preventing him from seeking asylum. The Court determined that Y.K.’s departure from Croatia was not voluntary, as he was pressured and misled by the authorities, and that he did not have an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal. The Court also highlighted that the Croatian authorities did not properly assess the safety and asylum procedures in North Macedonia, where Y.K. was sent.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter, focusing on the alleged violations of Articles 3, 13, and 34 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, his entry into Croatia, his detention, and the events leading to his removal. Key events include the applicant’s arrest, placement in an immigration center, attempts to contact his lawyer, and his eventual departure to North Macedonia.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant Croatian laws and practices, including the Aliens Act, Administrative Disputes Act, and Constitutional Court Act. It also references a CPT report on immigration detention in Croatia and material on asylum processes in North Macedonia.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Examines whether Croatia violated its obligations under Article 3 by denying the applicant access to the international protection procedure and by his treatment while in detention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 13:** Assesses whether the applicant had an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal, as required by Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 34:** Addresses the complaint that Croatian authorities hindered the applicant’s right to individual application to the Court by preventing contact with his lawyer.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs, to be awarded to the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Procedural Obligation under Article 3:** The Court emphasized that Croatia had a duty to assess the risk of ill-treatment in Türkiye, given the applicant’s claims of political persecution.
* **Voluntary Departure:** The Court found that the applicant’s departure was not voluntary due to the pressure and misinformation from the authorities, as well as the denial of access to his lawyer.
* **Effective Remedy:** The Court reiterated that remedies must have automatic suspensive effect to be considered effective in cases involving potential violations of Article 3.
* **Assessment of Third Country:** The decision highlights the importance of thoroughly assessing the accessibility and functioning of the asylum system in a third country before removing an asylum seeker there.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,300 for costs and expenses.
This decision underscores the importance of providing access to asylum procedures and ensuring that removals are carried out in a manner that respects the rights of asylum seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights.
**** This decision is related to the rights of asylum seekers and the obligations of states to ensure access to fair and effective asylum procedures, which is particularly relevant for Ukrainians seeking protection in Europe.
CASE OF PICCIONI v. ITALY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Piccioni v. Italy found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment ordering the applicant’s reinstatement in his job. The applicant, Mr. Mario Piccioni, had been unlawfully dismissed from his position as Director General at the Ministry of Justice. Despite a court order for his reinstatement, the Italian authorities failed to enforce the judgment, arguing that his contract had expired and his position had been reassigned. The ECtHR rejected the government’s argument, emphasizing that the purpose of the initial court decision was to provide effective protection to public managers unlawfully dismissed. The Court also noted that the government should have appealed the initial judgment if they had doubts about its terms. Consequently, the ECtHR awarded the applicant EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 16,000 for costs and expenses.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, outlining the applicant’s dismissal, the domestic court judgments, and the subsequent non-enforcement. It then presents the relevant legal framework, including the “spoils system” legislation and the case law of the Italian Court of Cassation. The Court’s assessment follows, addressing the admissibility of the complaint and the merits of the Article 6 § 1 violation. Finally, it deals with the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding damages and costs to the applicant. The decision does not explicitly refer to previous versions, but it does cite relevant case law of the Court, establishing a continuity with established principles.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principle that states must enforce final judgments, particularly those ordering reinstatement in a job position. The Court clarifies that arguments about the impossibility of *restitutio in integrum* (restoration to the original condition) cannot be used to evade the execution of a court judgment, especially when the administration’s own actions have contributed to the changed circumstances. This decision underscores the importance of effective judicial protection and the rule of law, ensuring that individuals can rely on court decisions to remedy unlawful actions by the state.
