CASE OF BASYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
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.
CASE OF FAJSTAVR v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Fajstavr v. the Czech Republic:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined the case of Mr. Fajstavr, who was convicted of drug trafficking in the Czech Republic. His conviction was largely based on the testimony of a co-accused who received a lighter sentence for cooperating with the prosecution. Mr. Fajstavr argued that this violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The ECHR ruled that, despite the reliance on the co-accused’s testimony, the trial was fair because Mr. Fajstavr had the opportunity to challenge the testimony, and the domestic courts provided sufficient reasoning for their judgment. The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s criminal conviction for drug trafficking.
* It details the facts, including pre-trial proceedings, the criminal trial, and relevant domestic legal framework and practice.
* The judgment then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, specifically focusing on the fairness of the hearing.
* It includes sections on admissibility and merits, presenting arguments from both the applicant and the Czech Government.
* The Court’s assessment section outlines general principles regarding the evaluation of evidence and the use of accomplice testimony.
* Finally, it applies these principles to the specific circumstances of Mr. Fajstavr’s case, ultimately concluding that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* The decision reaffirms that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, but it does not dictate how evidence should be assessed. The ECHR can only intervene if a domestic court’s assessment of evidence is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
* It acknowledges that using statements from witnesses who receive benefits in exchange for their testimony is a valuable tool in combating serious crime. However, it also recognizes the potential risks to the fairness of proceedings due to the possibility of manipulation or self-serving motives.
* The decision outlines several factors that the ECHR considers when assessing the impact of accomplice testimony on the fairness of a trial. These factors include whether the defense knew the witness’s identity, the existence of an arrangement with the prosecution, whether the domestic court reviewed the arrangement, and whether the defense had the opportunity to test the evidence.
* The judgment emphasizes that the key is whether the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the witness’s credibility and accuracy of their testimony.
CASE OF M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of M.S.L., TOV v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a Ukrainian company, M.S.L., TOV, which was subjected to economic sanctions, including the freezing of assets, by Ukraine between 2015 and 2018 under the Sanctions Act due to alleged threats to national security. The company challenged these sanctions, arguing they were unlawful and disproportionate. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court determined that the sanctions lacked sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness and that the domestic courts did not adequately review the justifications for imposing the sanctions.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter. It then details the facts, including the background of the conflict in Ukraine, the imposition of sanctions on the applicant company, and the administrative proceedings the company undertook to challenge these sanctions. The judgment then outlines the relevant domestic legal framework and practice, including the Constitution of Ukraine and the Sanctions Act. It also refers to relevant international materials and case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The “Law” section presents the applicant’s complaints, the government’s submissions, and the Court’s assessment, including admissibility and merits. The Court analyzes the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, finding a violation due to insufficient procedural guarantees. It also finds a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy. The Court does not find it necessary to separately rule on the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), rejecting the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage and finding that the finding of violations constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Unlawful Freezing of Assets:** The Court emphasized that the freezing of assets, as a form of control over the use of property, must be accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees to prevent arbitrary interferences.
* **Insufficient Procedural Guarantees:** The Court found that the Ukrainian courts’ limited review of the sanctions, particularly their failure to assess the factual basis for the allegations against the company, constituted a violation of the company’s rights.
* **Limited Judicial Review:** The decision highlights the importance of domestic courts providing effective scrutiny, even in cases involving national security, to ensure that sanctions are not arbitrary.
* **Effective Remedy:** The Court stressed that Article 13 requires an effective remedy at the national level to enforce Convention rights, which was lacking in this case due to the domestic courts’ approach.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it highlights the need for procedural safeguards and effective judicial review when imposing sanctions, even in situations involving national security. It also underscores the importance of providing individuals and entities with an opportunity to challenge such measures effectively.
CASE OF ANDREYEVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Andreyevskaya and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of several applicants who were penalized for participating in anti-war protests. The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests, fines, and detention, were disproportionate, especially considering the easing of COVID-19 restrictions at the time of the events (February-March 2022). The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine all the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Violation of Article 11:** The Court found that the measures against the applicants for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society,” violating their right to freedom of assembly.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also found violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention, referencing its well-established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to separately address additional complaints under Article 6 (fair trial) of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts as compensation for damages and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Disproportionate Measures:** The decision emphasizes that measures taken against participants in public assemblies must be proportionate, especially when restrictions related to public health crises are being eased.
* **Lack of Impartiality:** The Court highlighted the issue of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings, which can compromise the impartiality of the tribunal.
* **Suspensive Effect of Appeals:** The decision underscores the importance of allowing appeals against administrative detention sentences to have a suspensive effect, preventing immediate execution of the sentence.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision also highlights issues of unlawful detention related to escorting and detaining individuals at police stations after compiling an offence report.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the limitations on restrictions to freedom of assembly, even in the context of public health concerns, and the importance of fair and impartial legal proceedings.
CASE OF GORANIN v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Goranin v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
In the case of Goranin v. Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicant, Mr. Goranin, alleged ill-treatment by the police during his arrest and subsequent detention in March 2014, including injuries to his face and head. The Court determined that the domestic investigation into these allegations was ineffective and failed to properly examine the origin of the applicant’s injuries. The Court also found that the State was responsible for the applicant’s ill-treatment, classifying it as inhuman and degrading. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Goranin 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. **** This case is related to the events of Euromaidan.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police during his arrest and detention, and the lack of an effective investigation into these incidents.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding the prematurity of the complaints and the applicant’s alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation. It found the application admissible.
* **Merits – Procedural Limb:** The Court found that the domestic investigation did not reflect a serious effort to determine the relevant facts, particularly the origin of the applicant’s injuries, thus violating Article 3.
* **Merits – Substantive Limb:** The Court concluded that the State was responsible for the applicant’s ill-treatment, classifying it as inhuman and degrading, based on the applicant’s detailed account and the State’s failure to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 3:** The Court explicitly states that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under both its substantive (the ill-treatment itself) and procedural (the lack of an effective investigation) limbs.
* **State’s Responsibility:** The decision underscores the State’s responsibility to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by individuals under police control.
* **Ineffective Investigation:** The Court highlights the systemic problem in Ukraine regarding the reluctance of authorities to ensure prompt and thorough investigations of ill-treatment complaints against the police.
* **Admissibility Considerations:** The Court’s dismissal of the Government’s objections to admissibility provides clarity on what constitutes an admissible complaint in similar cases, particularly regarding ongoing proceedings and alleged lack of cooperation.
* **Compensation:** The award of EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage offers a benchmark for similar cases of ill-treatment.
CASE OF KANEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Kanevskiy and Others v. Russia, concerning multiple applications related to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants primarily complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses for participating in public events, often related to protests, including those concerning COVID-19 restrictions and protests against the war in Ukraine. The Court found that these measures violated Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court decided that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The decision addresses the joinder of multiple applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases occurring before Russia’s cessation as a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The core of the judgment focuses on the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established principles on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference, as well as previous case-law regarding COVID-19 restrictions. The Court also addresses other alleged violations under its well-established case-law, concerning unlawful deprivation of liberty, absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences. The decision concludes by addressing the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants.
The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia, particularly in the context of COVID-19 restrictions and protests against the war in Ukraine, were disproportionate and violated Article 11 of the Convention. The decision also highlights the systematic issues related to unlawful detention and fairness of administrative proceedings in Russia, awarding sums to the applicants. **** The decision is important as it relates to protests against the war in Ukraine.
CASE OF KIRSANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Kirsanov and Others v. Russia*, concerning the disproportionate measures taken against participants in peaceful public assemblies in Omsk, Russia, in January 2021 and March 2022. The applicants complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies, arguing that these measures violated their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. Additionally, the Court addressed other complaints related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. The Court decided that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The judgment begins with a procedural overview, identifying the applicants and the dates of their applications. It then outlines the facts of the case, focusing on the applicants’ complaints regarding the disproportionate measures taken against them during peaceful public assemblies. The legal analysis includes a joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and affirms the Court’s jurisdiction, as the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court then examines the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference. It also addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, such as unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding sums to the applicants for damages.
The main provisions of the decision highlight the violation of Article 11 due to disproportionate measures against participants in peaceful assemblies and violations related to unlawful detention and impartiality in administrative proceedings. The Court referenced previous cases such as *Frumkin v. Russia*, *Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia*, and *Kasparov and Others v. Russia* to support its findings, indicating a consistent stance on similar issues. The decision emphasizes that the measures taken against the applicants were not “necessary in a democratic society,” reinforcing the importance of protecting freedom of assembly.
CASE OF KOMORNIKOV AND MAKSIMOVA v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Komornikov and Maksimova v. Russia judgment:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights due to the permanent video surveillance of the applicants in pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities. The Court found that Russian law didn’t provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with detainees’ right to privacy. Additionally, the Court found violations related to inadequate conditions of detention during transport, the use of metal cages in courtrooms, and the lack of effective remedies for these issues, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court decided that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the applicants’ complaints related to the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and lack of an effective remedy in that regard and awarded sums for the other violations. The ECtHR asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
2. The judgment begins by outlining the procedure, including the applications’ origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the applicants’ complaints regarding permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and other issues. The legal analysis starts with joining the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction. The core of the judgment addresses the violation of Article 8 concerning video surveillance, referencing a previous case, Gorlov and Others v. Russia, to support its findings. It also addresses other alleged violations based on well-established case-law. Finally, it details the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, determining compensation for the applicants. The structure remains consistent with previous judgments.
3. The most important provision is the confirmation that permanent video surveillance of detainees in Russian detention facilities, without adequate legal safeguards, violates Article 8 of the Convention. This reinforces the need for clear, precise, and detailed national laws to protect detainees’ right to privacy. The judgment also highlights the continued relevance of the Court’s jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s departure from the Convention.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who were detained in Russia or in territories occupied by Russia before September 16, 2022, and subjected to similar conditions. They may be able to use this judgment as a precedent in potential cases against Russia.
CASE OF KRYLENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Krylenkov and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of multiple applicants. These applicants were subjected to disproportionate measures, including arrests and administrative convictions, for participating in public events in St. Petersburg in 2021. The assemblies were related to COVID-19 restrictions, and the Court found that the Russian authorities’ actions were not “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, inadequate conditions of detention during transport, and restrictions on appeals against administrative detention sentences.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision addresses 13 applications joined due to their similar subject matter.
* The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* The core complaint centered on violations of Article 11 concerning freedom of assembly. The Court referenced its existing case-law, including the Nemytov and Others v. Russia case, which dealt with similar issues related to COVID-19 restrictions and public assemblies.
* The Court also addressed other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols, citing established case-law related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, conditions of transport for detainees, and restrictions on appeals.
* The decision concludes that there was no need to separately examine additional complaints under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, given the findings on Article 11 and other violations.
* The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of the right to freedom of assembly, even during times of public health restrictions. It highlights that measures taken against organizers and participants must be proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Unlawful Detention and Procedural Issues:** The decision underscores concerns about unlawful detention practices, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and inadequate conditions of detention.
* **Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions:** The ruling adds to the body of case-law examining the application of COVID-19 related restrictions to public assemblies.
* **Compensation:** The decision provides a clear indication of the amounts the Court deems reasonable for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in cases involving similar violations.
**** This decision could be relevant for Ukrainians who have faced similar restrictions on freedom of assembly or other related violations, particularly in territories formerly under Russian control or in cases where Russian law was applied.
CASE OF KUCHUKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Kuchukyan and Others v. Russia*, concerning disproportionate measures taken against participants in peaceful public assemblies in Krasnoyarsk in 2020 and 2021. The applicants complained about their conviction for administrative offenses and, in some cases, arrest during the dispersal of these assemblies, arguing violations of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly). The Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court decided not to separately address additional complaints regarding the fairness of the administrative proceedings, considering its findings on Article 11 and other violations. The Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. The facts section describes the applicants and their complaints. The law section includes the joinder of the applications, the Court’s jurisdiction (limited to facts before Russia’s exit from the Convention on September 16, 2022), and the analysis of the alleged violation of Article 11. It refers to established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality, finding a breach of Article 11. The decision then addresses other alleged violations under established case-law, declaring them admissible and finding further violations. Finally, it addresses remaining complaints, decides not to examine them separately, and applies Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 of the Convention due to disproportionate measures against participants in peaceful assemblies. The Court’s emphasis on the necessity of interferences with freedom of assembly in a democratic society is crucial. Additionally, the findings of violations related to unlawful detention (Article 5) and the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings (Article 6) are significant, especially concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offense proceedings.
CASE OF MALOBRODSKIY v. RUSSIA
This judgment concerns the case of Mr. Aleksey Arkadyevich Malobrodskiy against Russia, focusing on deficiencies in the proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of his detention and other complaints regarding his treatment. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia violated Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to the lack of speediness in reviewing the applicant’s detention. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to handcuffing the applicant to a bed in a hospital without valid reason and unjustified pre-trial detention, referencing its established case-law. The Court held that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaint under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective remedies. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 16,000 euros in damages for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, jurisdiction, the law, and the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court first establishes its jurisdiction, noting that the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. It then addresses the complaint under Article 5 § 4, finding a violation based on the lack of speedy review of detention, referencing previous similar cases. The decision also considers other alleged violations under the Court’s well-established case-law, specifically regarding inhuman treatment and unjustified pre-trial detention. Finally, it determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicant. There are no explicit changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text, but the decision relies heavily on existing case-law.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 5 § 4 regarding the deficiencies in the proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of detention, as well as the findings of violations related to handcuffing and unjustified pre-trial detention. These findings underscore the importance of speedy judicial review of detention and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. The decision also highlights the need for well-reasoned justifications for pre-trial detention, based on evidence rather than assumptions.
CASE OF MALYKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Malykhina and Others v. Russia*, concerning 33 applications related to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses for breaching COVID-19 restrictions during various public events. The Court examined the complaints under Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and other articles of the Convention. The ECtHR found that the measures taken against the applicants were not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus violated Article 11. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The decision begins by outlining the procedure, including the lodging of the applications and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality. It also considers other alleged violations under well-established case-law, such as unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of administrative proceedings. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. The decision includes an appended table listing the applications, details of the violations, and the amounts awarded.
The main provisions of the decision confirm that the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ freedom of assembly were disproportionate and violated Article 11 of the Convention. The decision also highlights violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings due to the absence of a prosecuting party, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention. The Court referenced its previous case law, including *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, to support its findings. The decision emphasizes the importance of protecting freedom of assembly, even during times of public health restrictions, and ensures that any interference must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
CASE OF MARKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Markin and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated the rights of numerous applicants, all Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were prosecuted for extremism for practicing their religion. The Court found that these prosecutions, based on the activities of liquidated local religious organizations, infringed upon their freedom of religion and association under Article 9 of the Convention. The ECHR referenced a previous similar case, *Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia*, where it had already established a violation of Article 9 in comparable circumstances. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, unreasonable pre-trial detention, and unlawful searches, awarding compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The Court emphasized that the Russian Federation had jurisdiction over Crimea since March 18, 2014, and that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, thus falling within the Court’s competence.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine all applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction, noting Russia’s control over Crimea since March 2014 and the timing of the events before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 9 Violation:** The core finding was a violation of Article 9, citing the *Taganrog LRO* case as a precedent. The Court found no reason to deviate from its previous conclusions regarding the impermissibly broad application of extremism legislation.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations related to Article 5 (unlawful detention, lack of sufficient reasons for detention) and Article 8 (unlawful search), based on its established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Some complaints were deemed inadmissible or not requiring separate examination.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded specific sums to the applicants for damages, referencing the *Taganrog LRO* case for guidance.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Confirmation of Article 9 Violation:** The decision reinforces the ECHR’s stance against the prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia for peacefully practicing their religion, solidifying the precedent set in *Taganrog LRO*.
* **Jurisdictional Clarity:** The ruling clarifies the ECHR’s jurisdiction over cases originating from Crimea after March 2014 and before Russia’s exit from the Convention in September 2022.
* **Compensation Standards:** The decision provides insight into the amounts awarded for damages in similar cases, offering a benchmark for future claims.
* **Unlawful detention and searches:** The decision confirms the ECHR’s stance against unlawful detention and searches.
**** This decision has implications for Ukrainians in Crimea who have faced similar persecution for practicing their religion as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
CASE OF MENDIETA BORREGO v. SPAIN
Here’s a breakdown of the Mendieta Borrego v. Spain decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Spain in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case concerned the denial of a survivor’s pension to the applicant, Eva Mendieta Borrego, following the death of her partner due to a newly introduced requirement for formal registration of civil partnerships. The Court determined that the retroactive application of this requirement, without adequate transitional measures, deprived the applicant of her legitimate expectation to receive the pension. This decision aligns with the Court’s previous judgment in *Valverde Digon v. Spain*, addressing similar issues.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case revolves around the applicant’s complaint regarding the refusal to grant her a survivor’s pension after her partner’s death, citing a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Background:** The applicant had cohabitated with her partner since 2003, and they had three children together. Under Catalan law, prior to March 2014, formal registration wasn’t required for civil partners to receive survivor’s pensions. However, a Constitutional Court judgment in March 2014 changed this, mandating formal registration at least two years before the partner’s death. The applicant and her partner never registered, and her application for a survivor’s pension was rejected after his death in 2015.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* **Admissibility:** The Court found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable because the applicant had a legitimate expectation of receiving the pension, given their long-term cohabitation and children.
* **Merits:** The Court noted that the applicant’s partner died less than two years after the new registration requirement came into force, making it impossible for her to comply. The Court concluded that imposing this new requirement without transitional measures was disproportionate and violated the applicant’s rights.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage but did not award any amount for pecuniary damage, as the domestic authorities had not determined the specific pension amount she would have been entitled to.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Legitimate Expectation:** The decision reinforces the concept of “legitimate expectation” in the context of social security benefits and how changes in legal requirements can affect these expectations.
* **Retroactive Application of Laws:** The case highlights the ECtHR’s concern with the retroactive application of new legal requirements, especially when they impose a significant burden on individuals who had a legitimate expectation based on the previous legal framework.
* **Transitional Measures:** The judgment underscores the importance of implementing adequate transitional measures when introducing new legal requirements that affect existing rights or expectations.
* **Proportionality:** The decision emphasizes the need to strike a fair balance between the interests of the state and the rights of the individual, ensuring that any interference with those rights is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
This decision serves as a reminder to states to consider the impact of new legislation on individuals’ existing rights and expectations, particularly in the realm of social security benefits.
CASE OF NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This is a judgment regarding the revision of a previous decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of *Namchyl-Ool and Others v. Russia*. The applicant, Mr. Aleksey Vyacheslavovich Sushkov, requested a correction of his patronymic name in the original judgment and brought to the Court’s attention that he had already received compensation in another case (*Peyet and Others v. Russia*) for a similar violation. The Court decided to rectify the patronymic error and revise the initial judgment. It found that the application was substantially the same as a matter already examined and compensated in the *Peyet and Others* case. Consequently, the Court decided to strike out Mr. Sushkov’s application from the list of cases.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Procedure:** This section outlines the background of the case, including the initial judgment, the applicant’s request for correction and revision, and the Court’s decision to examine the request.
* **The Law:** This section addresses the Court’s jurisdiction, its correspondence with the Russian government, and the analysis of the applicant’s request. It refers to relevant articles of the Convention and the Rules of the Court, particularly Rule 80 (revision) and Rule 81 (rectification). The Court explains its reasoning for rectifying the patronymic error and revising the judgment, emphasizing that the error had a decisive influence on the initial findings.
* **For These Reasons:** This section presents the Court’s decision, which includes holding jurisdiction, dismissing the request for rectification as belated, declaring the request for revision admissible, rectifying the judgment of its own motion, deciding to revise the judgment, and striking application no. 53000/18 out of its list of cases.
* **Appendix:** List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention)
The main provisions of the decision are:
* **Rectification of the patronymic error:** The Court corrected the applicant’s patronymic from “Valeryevich” to “Vyacheslavovich.”
* **Revision of the judgment:** The Court decided to revise the initial judgment due to the error in the applicant’s patronymic, which led to the examination of a case that had already been addressed in a previous judgment.
* **Striking out the application:** The Court struck out application no. 53000/18 from its list of cases, as it was found to be substantially the same as a matter already examined and compensated.
The most important aspect of this decision is the Court’s willingness to correct errors and revise its judgments when necessary to ensure fairness and accuracy. It also highlights the importance of verifying the identity of applicants and the potential consequences of errors in the application process.
CASE OF SIMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
This judgment concerns four applications against Russia regarding violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The first applicant complained of an unlawful search, while all applicants raised other complaints under the Convention. The Court decided to examine the applications jointly, focusing on facts that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court found a violation of Article 8 regarding the unlawful search of the first applicant’s house, stating it was carried out without sufficient grounds and safeguards. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to restrictions on public events, unlawful detention, and registration in a security services database, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court awarded the first applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses, while considering the finding of a violation as sufficient just satisfaction for the second applicant.
The judgment is structured into sections covering the procedure, facts, and legal analysis. It begins by outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved, then summarizes the factual background of the complaints. The legal analysis addresses the joinder of applications, jurisdiction, and alleged violations of specific articles of the Convention. The Court refers to previous case-law to support its findings, particularly regarding unlawful searches and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, detailing the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants. Compared to previous versions, this judgment consolidates multiple applications and reaffirms established principles concerning unlawful searches and restrictions on public events.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 8 due to the unlawful search, emphasizing the need for relevant and sufficient grounds and adequate safeguards. The findings regarding restrictions on public events, unlawful detention, and registration in security databases are also significant, as they highlight systemic issues and reference established case-law that can be applied in similar cases. The decision also clarifies the Court’s jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, providing a clear temporal scope for its rulings. **** This may have implications for pending and future cases involving alleged violations in Russia before its withdrawal, including those involving Ukrainian citizens or events related to the conflict.
CASE OF SKOROBOGATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Skorobogatov and Others v. Russia*, concerning 22 applications related to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants primarily complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses for participating in public events that allegedly violated COVID-19 restrictions. The Court examined the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly. The ECtHR found that the measures taken by Russian authorities were not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus violated Article 11 of the Convention. The Court also addressed other complaints raised by some applicants under other Articles of the Convention, finding violations based on its established case-law. Finally, the Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants sums ranging from EUR 3,500 to EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the origin of the applications and the notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications, the Court’s jurisdiction (limited to facts occurring before Russia’s cessation as a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022), and the assessment of the alleged violation of Article 11. The Court references its existing case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interferences. It also addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law and clarifies that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants. The decision concludes with the Court’s holdings, declaring the complaints admissible, finding violations of Article 11 and other Convention articles, and ordering the respondent State to pay the specified amounts.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principles regarding freedom of assembly, particularly in the context of restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court’s finding that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society” underscores the importance of protecting this right even during times of public health crises. The decision also highlights the importance of ensuring fair trial rights, as evidenced by the additional violations found under other articles of the Convention.
CASE OF T.T. v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of T.T. v. Poland:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Poland in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the ineffective enforcement of a court order for the return of the applicant’s daughter to the United Kingdom. The applicant, a British national, had been trying to enforce a return order against the child’s mother, who had wrongfully retained the child in Poland. The Court determined that Polish authorities did not take all necessary and adequate steps to facilitate the enforcement of the return order, leading to a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for family life. The Court dismissed the Polish government’s preliminary objections regarding the application’s admissibility. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 9,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Background:** The case originates from the non-enforcement of a return order issued under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. The Łódź Regional Court ordered the child’s mother to return her to the UK, a decision upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.
* **Enforcement Proceedings:** Details the numerous attempts to enforce the return order, highlighting the actions and inactions of Polish authorities, including the police and court-appointed guardian.
* **Cassation Appeal:** Notes the unsuccessful attempt by the Ombudsman for Children to appeal the return order.
* **Proceedings under the Brussels II bis Regulation:** Describes parallel proceedings initiated by the applicant to enforce a UK court decision regarding the child’s return.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 8 Violation:** The Court analyzes whether Poland fulfilled its obligations under Article 8 to take adequate measures to reunite the applicant with his child.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses and dismisses the government’s objections regarding the application’s admissibility, specifically the claims of incompatibility *ratione materiae* and lack of victim status.
* **Merits:** Assesses the actions of Polish authorities, finding significant shortcomings and delays in their efforts to enforce the return order.
* **Article 41 Application:** Examines the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, awarding EUR 9,800 for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **State’s Obligation:** The decision reinforces the State’s positive obligation under Article 8 to take effective measures to enforce return orders in international child abduction cases.
* **Due Diligence:** Highlights the need for authorities to act with due diligence, avoid unreasonable delays, and ensure that enforcement actions are well-prepared and effective.
* **Coordination:** Emphasizes the importance of effective cooperation and communication between different authorities, such as courts, police, and educational institutions, to facilitate the enforcement process.
* **Impact of Hindrance:** Acknowledges that parental obstruction does not excuse the authorities from their responsibility to take all necessary steps to enforce court orders.
* **Victim Status:** Clarifies that a parent who experiences non-enforcement of a return order can claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF TSOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here is the analysis of the decision in the case of Tsoy and Others v. Russia.
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in favor of 49 applicants who complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies in Russia, specifically in connection with breaches of COVID-19 restrictions and protests against the war in Ukraine. The Court found violations of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly) and other articles related to unlawful detention and fair trial rights. The applicants were arrested and convicted for administrative offenses for participating in rallies and protests. The ECtHR has determined that the measures taken against the applicants were not necessary in a democratic society. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. The decision is structured as follows:
* **Procedure**: Describes the initiation of the case and the applications made to the Court.
* **Facts**: Lists the applicants and details of their complaints.
* **Law**:
* **Joinder of the Applications**: The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction**: Confirms the Court’s jurisdiction as the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention (16 September 2022).
* **Alleged Violation of Article 11 of the Convention**: Addresses the complaints regarding disproportionate measures against the applicants for participating in public assemblies.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law**: Examines other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols based on existing case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints**: States that there is no need to deal separately with additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention**: Determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicants.
* **Appendix**: Provides a list of applications, details of the public events, administrative offenses, penalties, final domestic decisions, other complaints, and the amounts awarded to each applicant.
Compared to previous versions, this decision consolidates numerous similar applications into a single judgment, streamlining the process and reinforcing the Court’s stance on freedom of assembly and related rights in the context of Russia’s actions before its withdrawal from the Convention.
3. The main provisions of the decision that are most important for its use are:
* **Violation of Article 11**: The Court’s finding that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society” reinforces the importance of protecting the right to peaceful assembly, even during times of public health restrictions or political tension.
* **Unlawful Detention (Article 5)**: The decision highlights instances of unlawful detention related to the compilation of offense reports, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to adhere to due process and avoid arbitrary detention.
* **Fair Trial Rights (Article 6)**: The Court notes the lack of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings due to the absence of a prosecuting party, underscoring the importance of fair and impartial judicial processes.
* **Compensation (Article 41)**: The decision awards specific amounts to each applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, setting a precedent for compensation in similar cases.
* **Protest against the war in Ukraine**: **** A number of complaints are related to the violation of the right to protest against the war in Ukraine.
CASE OF ZAKHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Zakharova and Others v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention in respect of numerous applicants who were disproportionately penalized for participating in public assemblies in Cheboksary in January 2021, specifically rallies in support of A. Navalnyy. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, linked to the same events. These findings are consistent with the Court’s established case-law on similar issues. The Court has jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The applicants were awarded sums ranging from EUR 3,500 to EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses 25 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* It confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the cases, as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* The core issue is the alleged violation of Article 11 concerning freedom of assembly, focusing on disproportionate measures taken against participants.
* The Court references previous case-law, including Frumkin v. Russia, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, where similar violations were found.
* It also addresses additional complaints under the Convention, particularly regarding unlawful deprivation of liberty and the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, citing established case-law such as Butkevich v. Russia and Karelin v. Russia.
* The decision awards compensation under Article 41 of the Convention, with specific amounts listed in an appendix.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the importance of the right to freedom of assembly and highlights that measures taken against participants must be proportionate.
* It underscores that detaining individuals solely for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offense record is a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security).
* The judgment points out that the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, specifically the absence of a prosecuting party, is a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial).
* The decision can be used as a precedent in cases involving similar restrictions on freedom of assembly and related rights, particularly in the context of administrative offenses.
* The amounts awarded for damages can serve as a benchmark in similar cases.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians, especially those who have faced similar restrictions on freedom of assembly or related rights in territories formerly under Russian control or influence. The principles outlined in this judgment can be used to support claims of human rights violations before international bodies.
