Here’s a breakdown of the Vashchenko and Tretyak v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The case concerned the reversal of final court decisions in favor of the applicants by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The Supreme Court based its review on differing interpretations of substantive law in later case-law. The ECtHR ruled that this retroactive application of new case-law breached the principle of legal certainty and the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case, focusing on the reversal of final court decisions due to subsequent case-law.
* **Facts:** Details the specific circumstances of each applicant’s case.
* Vashchenko: A judge seeking salary arrears, initially awarded by lower courts, but later overturned by the Supreme Court.
* Tretyak: An employee in Crimea dismissed after Russia asserted jurisdiction, initially won reinstatement and compensation, later partially overturned by the Supreme Court.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites the relevant provisions of Ukrainian procedural law regarding the review of court decisions by the Supreme Court.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine both applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 6 Violation:** The Court found that the reversal of final decisions based on subsequent case-law violated the principle of legal certainty.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation:** The Court held that setting aside the final judgments interfered with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as the measure was not “lawful” under the Convention.
* **Article 13:** The Court did not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13, considering the findings under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** Addressed the issue of compensation for the applicants.
* Pecuniary Damage: Awarded EUR 14,500 to Tretyak, but no amount to Vashchenko as he did not sustain any pecuniary damage.
* Non-pecuniary Damage: Awarded EUR 4,700 to each applicant.
* Costs and Expenses: Awarded EUR 200 to each applicant.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* The Court declared violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* It outlined the specific amounts to be paid to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Legal Certainty:** The decision reinforces the importance of the principle of legal certainty and the finality of judgments. It clarifies that final court decisions should not be easily overturned based on subsequent changes in case-law.
* **Retroactive Application of Case-Law:** The ruling highlights the dangers of retroactively applying new interpretations of the law, especially when it undermines previously established rights.
* **Protection of Property:** The decision confirms that enforceable judgments constitute “possessions” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that setting aside such judgments can violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
* **Review by Supreme Court:** The Court emphasizes that the review by the Supreme Court should be reserved for correcting fundamental errors and not for simply re-examining cases based on differing legal opinions.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding the functioning of its Supreme Court and the stability of judicial decisions. It suggests the need for reforms to ensure greater legal certainty and respect for the finality of judgments.
