Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Mogyla 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, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The cases, joined due to their similar nature, concern limitations on the applicants’ access to court, primarily due to disagreements between courts regarding jurisdiction and prohibitive court fees. The Court determined that these limitations impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right to a court. In one case, the Court also found violations related to the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy regarding the length of the proceedings. 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 begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged against Ukraine under Article 34 of the Convention and that the Ukrainian Government was notified.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the key facts of the applications, including the applicants’ complaints regarding restricted access to court under Article 6.
* **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 the importance of the right of access to a court as inherent in Article 6 § 1, while acknowledging that this right is not absolute and may be subject to limitations. It referenced previous cases where similar issues were found to be violations.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** In one application, additional complaints were raised and deemed admissible, disclosing further violations of the Convention based on the Court’s existing case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addressed the issue of just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs, based on 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 due to limitations on access to a court.
* Held that there were violations of the Convention regarding other complaints raised.
* Ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts for damages and costs.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant names, dates, key issues, relevant case-law, facts, other complaints, and awarded amounts.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Right of Access to Court:** The decision reinforces the principle that the right of access to a court is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Limitations on Access:** While acknowledging that limitations on this right are permissible, the Court emphasizes that such limitations must not impair the very essence of the right.
* **Prohibitive Costs and Legal Aid:** The decision highlights that excessively high court fees, especially when legal aid is not available, can constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Jurisdictional Disagreements:** Disagreements between different courts regarding jurisdiction, leading to prolonged uncertainty and denial of a determination on the merits, can also violate Article 6 § 1.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s approach to awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs provides guidance for similar cases.
****
This decision is related to Ukraine, as the applications were lodged against Ukraine and the Court found violations of the Convention by the State. This decision has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the protection of their right to a fair trial and access to justice.
