Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Kiryeyev and Liman v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, including access to a court. The Court found that both applicants, Kiryeyev and Liman, were denied access to higher courts due to an excessively formalistic application of procedural rules by Ukrainian courts. This effectively impaired their right to have their cases reviewed by a higher judicial instance. The Court emphasized that while states are not obligated to establish appellate courts, if they do, the guarantees of Article 6 must be respected.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged under Article 34 of the Convention and that the Ukrainian Government was notified.
* **Facts:** It briefly refers to the appended table for details about the applicants and their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It reiterates the principles of Article 6 § 1, emphasizing that the right of access to a court is not absolute but limitations must not impair the very essence of that right. It references previous case law, including *Golder v. the United Kingdom* and *Mushta v. Ukraine*, where similar violations were found.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed additional complaints by Kiryeyev but found it unnecessary to examine them separately, as the main legal issue had already been addressed.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded compensation to Liman but not to Kiryeyev, as he did not submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with the Rules of Court.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
* Joined the applications.
* Declared the complaints regarding denial of access to higher courts admissible.
* Found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* Awarded compensation to Liman.
* **Appendix:** Provides a table with details of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of application, specific irregularities complained of, relevant case law, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Access to Courts:** The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that procedural rules do not become insurmountable barriers that prevent individuals from having their cases heard by higher courts.
* **Formalistic Application of Rules:** The judgment highlights that an excessively formalistic application of procedural rules can violate Article 6 § 1, particularly when it leads to the denial of access to appellate courts.
* **Consistency with Previous Case Law:** The Court’s reliance on previous cases like *Kreuz v. Poland* and *Mushta v. Ukraine* reinforces the established principle that limitations on access to courts must be carefully scrutinized to ensure they do not undermine the essence of the right to a fair trial.
* **Compensation:** The decision to award compensation to one applicant and not the other illustrates the importance of adhering to procedural rules for claiming just satisfaction.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine as it highlights the need for Ukrainian courts to apply procedural rules in a way that respects the right of access to justice, particularly in appellate proceedings. It serves as a reminder that overly strict or formalistic interpretations of procedural requirements can lead to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
