Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Basyuk and Others v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns complaints by eleven Ukrainian nationals who were denied salary arrears and related compensation from their former employer, a state-owned railway company, due to military activity in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Ukrainian courts cited “force majeure,” supported by a conclusion from the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (UCCI), as the reason for denying compensation for the delayed payments. The applicants argued that only a UCCI “certificate,” not a “conclusion,” could legally confirm force majeure. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), concluding that the domestic courts’ interpretation of the law was not arbitrary and the measures taken were proportionate in the context of the armed conflict.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case’s subject matter: the refusal to grant salary and related amounts due to force majeure.
* **Facts:** Details the applicants’ employment with “Donetsk Railways,” the loss of Ukrainian government control over the territories, the reorganization of the enterprise, and the applicants’ subsequent dismissal. It also describes the civil proceedings initiated by the applicants, the arguments presented by both sides, and the domestic courts’ reasoning, including their reliance on the UCCI’s “scientific and legal conclusion.”
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Cites relevant articles from the Labour Code, Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Law on Temporary Measures during the Anti-Terrorist Operation, and Law on Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Frames the applicants’ complaints as falling under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
* **Admissibility:** Declares part of the complaints inadmissible, specifically those concerning the actual amounts awarded, finding no manifest arbitrariness in the domestic courts’ assessment of evidence. The remaining part, concerning the rejection of claims based on force majeure, is declared admissible.
* **Merits:** Examines the parties’ submissions and assesses whether the interference with the applicants’ property rights was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate. The Court finds no violation, emphasizing the wide margin of appreciation afforded to domestic authorities in the context of armed conflict.
* **Other Alleged Violations of the Convention:** Rejects other complaints regarding breaches of fair trial requirements under Article 6 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded.
* **Dissenting Opinions:** Includes joint and partly dissenting opinions from judges who disagreed with the majority’s finding of no violation.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Margin of Appreciation During Armed Conflict:** The decision highlights that domestic authorities are afforded a wide margin of appreciation when dealing with economic and social consequences resulting from armed conflict, especially in adapting labor relations to new realities.
* **Acceptance of UCCI “Conclusion”:** The Court accepted the domestic courts’ interpretation that a UCCI “conclusion” could be used as evidence of force majeure, even though the applicants argued that only a UCCI “certificate” was valid for this purpose. This confirms the flexibility afforded to domestic courts in interpreting evidence, especially in challenging circumstances.
* **Lawfulness Requirement:** The decision clarifies that the “lawfulness” requirement under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is met if the domestic law is sufficiently accessible, precise, and foreseeable in its application. The lack of a specific statutory provision can be remedied by the domestic courts’ clear and precise interpretation, provided it is not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
* **Subsidiary Role of the ECtHR:** The Court reiterated its subsidiary role, emphasizing that it is not its task to give its own interpretation of domestic law or certain legal concepts, or to review alleged errors of fact and law committed by the domestic judicial authorities.
**** This decision has implications for Ukrainians who had their employment disrupted due to the conflict in the Donbas region and were denied compensation based on force majeure. It confirms that Ukrainian courts have some flexibility in interpreting force majeure and that the ECtHR will generally defer to their judgments unless they are manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary.
