Here’s an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Korol and Others v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in a series of joined applications. The applicants complained about limitations on their access to court, primarily due to prohibitive costs, the unavailability of legal aid, unjustifiably restricted judicial review, or courts ignoring claims. The Court concluded that these limitations impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right to a court. In one application (Bilynskyy-Grodz), the Court also found violations regarding the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies for such delays. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums for non-pecuniary damage and, in some cases, for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Ukraine, which were then joined due to their similar subject matter.
* **Facts:** The facts section refers to an appended table that lists the applicants and details of their applications, focusing on the limitations they faced in accessing courts.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The Court reiterated that the right of access to a court is inherent in Article 6 § 1 but is not absolute and may be subject to limitations. However, these limitations must not impair the very essence of the right. The Court referenced previous cases where similar issues were found to be in violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** In one case, the applicant raised additional complaints, which the Court found admissible and also in violation of the Convention, based on well-established case law. These included issues related to the length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs, considering its case law and the documents in its possession.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
* Joined the applications.
* Declared the applications admissible.
* Held that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 concerning limitations on access to a court.
* Held that there was a violation of the Convention regarding other complaints raised under well-established case-law.
* Ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts for damages and costs.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ details, the key issues impairing access to a court, relevant case law, facts, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that limitations on access to court do not impair the essence of that right.
* It provides specific examples of what constitutes an unacceptable limitation, such as prohibitive costs without access to legal aid, unjustifiably restricted judicial review, and courts ignoring claims.
* **** The decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it identifies systemic issues within the Ukrainian legal system that hinder access to justice.
* The case Bilynskyy-Grodz highlights the importance of the reasonable duration of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies for excessive delays.
* The amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage can serve as a reference for similar cases.
