Review of ECHR decisions for 14/11/2025

CASE OF A.R. v. POLAND

Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of A.R. v. Poland.

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Poland violated Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of A.R. v. Poland. The case concerned a woman who, after discovering her foetus had a genetic disorder, travelled to the Netherlands for an abortion due to the uncertainty surrounding the legal status of abortion in Poland following a Constitutional Court ruling. The ECtHR concluded that the prolonged uncertainty caused by the delayed publication and entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s judgment, which restricted abortion access, interfered with the applicant’s right to private life. The Court emphasized that this interference was not “in accordance with the law” because the Constitutional Court’s judgment was not issued by a “tribunal established by law” and there was a lack of foreseeability due to the general uncertainty about the applicable legal framework.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision:**

The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: restrictions on abortion introduced by the Polish Constitutional Court and their impact on the applicant. It then details the facts, including the applicant’s pregnancy, the diagnosis of foetal abnormality, and her decision to seek abortion services abroad. The judgment references the relevant domestic legal framework and practice, particularly concerning access to legal abortion and the role of the Constitutional Court.

The Court then addresses preliminary objections raised by the Polish Government, such as the applicant’s lack of victim status and failure to exhaust domestic remedies, dismissing most of them. It examines the complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 8 of the Convention, finding the Article 3 complaint inadmissible.

The core of the decision lies in the analysis of Article 8, where the Court determines whether there was an interference with the applicant’s right to private life and whether that interference was justified under the Convention. The Court concludes that there was an interference and that it was not “in accordance with the law” due to issues with the Constitutional Court’s composition and the uncertainty surrounding the legal framework.

Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding the applicant compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Applicability of Article 8:** The decision affirms that restrictions on abortion access, particularly when sought for health and well-being reasons, fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the right to respect for private life.
* **”In Accordance with the Law” Requirement:** The judgment underscores that any interference with Article 8 rights must be based on domestic law that is accessible, foreseeable, and compatible with the rule of law. It highlights that a judgment issued by a body not considered a “tribunal established by law” cannot form a lawful basis for such interference.
* **Foreseeability and Legal Certainty:** The decision emphasizes the importance of legal certainty and foreseeability, particularly when restricting previously available rights. The Court found that the delayed publication of the Constitutional Court’s judgment created a state of uncertainty that undermined legal certainty and directly affected the applicant’s private life.
* **Victim Status:** The Court clarifies that an individual can claim to be a victim of a violation even without a specific instance of enforcement if they are required to modify their conduct or risk being prosecuted, or if they are part of a group at risk of being directly affected by the legislation.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s decision to award pecuniary damages, covering medical, travel, and accommodation costs, establishes a precedent for compensating applicants who have incurred expenses due to unlawful restrictions on their reproductive rights.

I hope this description is helpful for your journalistic purposes.

CASE OF ABO v. TÜRKİYE

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Abo v. Türkiye:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to unfair proceedings related to Mr. Abo’s application for the reopening of his criminal case. This application was based on a previous ECtHR judgment that had already found a violation of his rights due to a lack of legal assistance during police custody. The Court determined that the Turkish courts’ dismissal of his reopening application was based on insufficient reasoning. Additionally, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of the proceedings concerning his reopening application.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the alleged unfairness and excessive length of proceedings related to the dismissal of Mr. Abo’s application for reopening his criminal case. It then details the facts, including the original criminal proceedings against Mr. Abo, the ECtHR’s previous judgment in his favor, and the subsequent proceedings concerning his application to reopen the case. The judgment outlines the relevant Turkish legal framework and practice, including provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure related to the reopening of criminal proceedings.

The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, addressing the Turkish government’s preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and the scope of Article 6. The Court finds that it does have jurisdiction to examine the application and that Article 6 is applicable to the proceedings in question. The Court then proceeds to examine the merits of the applicant’s complaints, finding violations of Article 6 § 1 due to both the unfairness and the excessive length of the proceedings. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The Court clarifies that Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) can apply to proceedings concerning “extraordinary” legal remedies like the reopening of criminal cases, especially when domestic courts are required to determine the criminal charge again.
* The Court emphasizes that domestic courts must provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, particularly when dismissing applications for reopening criminal proceedings based on previous ECtHR judgments. Automatic or stereotypical reasoning is not sufficient.
* The Court highlights the importance of due diligence in assessing applications for reopening criminal proceedings, especially when the applicant is in detention. Unwarranted delays can lead to a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
* The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, should he so request.

This decision underscores the importance of fair and efficient proceedings when domestic courts are considering reopening criminal cases following a judgment from the ECtHR.

CASE OF CONSTANTINOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

Okay, I have analyzed the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Constantinou and Others v. Cyprus. Here’s a journalist-friendly description:

**1. Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Cyprus did not violate the rights of public officials and civil servants whose salaries and pensions were temporarily reduced during the country’s financial crisis. The court found that the measures taken by Cyprus were a reasonable response to an excessive budget deficit and financial crisis. The ECHR stated that there was no divergence in the Supreme Court’s case-law concerning State interference with the pensions and salaries of officials and employees in the civil service at a time of financial crisis. It also concluded that a fair balance was struck between the competing interests at stake, and Cyprus did not overstep its wide margin of appreciation in this matter. The court dismissed complaints regarding fair trial rights and discrimination.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses five applications concerning interferences with the pensions and salaries of Cypriot civil servants during the economic crisis. The court examined complaints under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

* The judgment details the factual background, including the enactment of Laws No. 112(I)/2011 and 168(I)/2012, which introduced temporary deductions from public sector salaries and pensions.
* It summarizes the domestic court proceedings, including the Supreme Court’s judgments in *Charalambous and Others v. the Republic of Cyprus* and *Avgousti and others v. The Republic of Cyprus*, which upheld the constitutionality of the austerity measures.
* The ECHR assessed whether the interferences with the applicants’ property rights were lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and were proportionate.
* The court found no violation of Article 6, concluding that the domestic courts provided a reasonable explanation for their approach and that there was no profound and long-standing divergence in case-law.
* It also found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, holding that the measures were lawful, pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest, and struck a fair balance between the competing interests.
* The court rejected the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, finding that civil servants and private employees are not in an analogous situation for discrimination purposes.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

* The decision confirms that temporary reductions in public sector salaries and pensions during a financial crisis can be justified under the Convention, provided they are lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and are proportionate.
* It highlights the wide margin of appreciation afforded to states in regulating their social and economic policies, especially when dealing with budgetary constraints.
* The judgment underscores the importance of striking a fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of individual rights.
* It clarifies that civil servants and private employees are not necessarily in an analogous situation for discrimination claims related to salary and pension reductions.

Let me know if you need more details on any specific aspect of this decision.

CASE OF ILIEVSKA AND ZDRAVEVA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Ilievska and Zdraveva v. North Macedonia:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The Court found that North Macedonia violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The violation stemmed from the inability of two judges, Ms. Ilievska and Ms. Zdraveva, to appeal decisions of the State Judicial Council (SJC) that dismissed them from their posts after their cases had been sent back for reconsideration by second-instance Appeal Panels. The Court determined that this inability to appeal impaired the very essence of their right to access a court, as it prevented any judicial review of whether the SJC had properly followed the Appeal Panels’ instructions.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the background of the cases, detailing the dismissal proceedings against each applicant, their appeals, and the relevant domestic legal framework.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** This section describes the relevant articles of North Macedonia’s Constitution, laws governing the judiciary, and the practice of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. It also includes international materials, such as UN and Council of Europe documents on judicial independence.
* **The Law:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court lays out its reasoning.
* It addresses the joinder of the applications, considering them together due to their similar subject matter.
* It analyzes the alleged violations of Article 6, focusing on the right to a fair trial.
* The Court examines whether Article 6 is applicable, determining that the case concerns a “civil right” – the right to serve an unlimited term of office as a judge.
* It assesses whether the SJC and the Appeal Panels qualify as “tribunals” under Article 6.
* The Court concludes that the inability to appeal the SJC’s decisions after remittal violated the applicants’ right of access to a court.
* Finally, the Court addresses the second applicant’s complaint regarding legal certainty but finds it unnecessary to rule on it separately.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding Ms. Ilievska compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs. Ms. Zdraveva did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**

* **Applicability of Article 6 to Judges’ Dismissal:** The Court reaffirms that Article 6 of the Convention applies to proceedings concerning the dismissal of judges, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and the need to protect judges from measures that could threaten it.
* **Right to Access to Court:** The Court underscores that the right to access a court must be “practical and effective,” not “theoretical or illusory.” While this right is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, such limitations must not impair the very essence of the right.
* **Importance of Independent Review:** The judgment highlights the importance of an independent review of disciplinary decisions concerning judges. The Court stresses that when a higher court remits a case back to a disciplinary body, there must be a mechanism to ensure that the disciplinary body complies with the higher court’s instructions. The absence of such a mechanism undermines the effectiveness of the appeal process and weakens the guarantees of judicial protection under Article 6 § 1.
* **Minister of Justice in SJC:** The Court expresses concerns about the presence of the Minister of Justice as an ex officio member of the SJC, noting that this could raise doubts about the SJC’s independence. However, it does not make a definitive ruling on this issue, as the applicants did not specifically complain about it.

This decision emphasizes the importance of judicial independence and the right of judges to a fair hearing, including the right to an effective appeal, in disciplinary proceedings.

CASE OF MANUKYAN v. ARMENIA

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Manukyan v. Armenia:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Armenia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the unjustified collection and storage of personal information of Mr. Manukyan by the National Security Service (NSS), as well as the coercion and threats used to pressure him into cooperation. The Court also determined that Armenia failed to conduct an effective investigation into Mr. Manukyan’s allegations regarding these actions. The Court concluded that these actions constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to private life and that the interference was not justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the core issues: collection of personal data, coercion, lack of investigation, and lack of remedy.
* **Facts:** Details the background events, including the applicant’s interaction with the NSS agent, the recorded conversation, and subsequent domestic proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Provides the context of Armenian laws relevant to the case, including the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Law on Personal Data, Operative and Intelligence Measures Act, and Law on National Security Services.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:**
* **Existence of Interference:** The Court found that the collection and storage of the applicant’s data and the threats made against him constituted an interference with his private life.
* **Justification of the Interference:** The Court determined that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” and did not pursue a legitimate aim, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
* **Alleged violation of Article 8 on account of failure to investigate:** The Court found that the authorities were required to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations and failed to do so.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 13:** The applicant complained that he had had no effective remedy for his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as the national authorities had failed to initiate and conduct an effective criminal investigation into his allegations.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses just satisfaction, awarding the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of both the interference with the applicant’s private life and the lack of an effective investigation, holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention, and specifies the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant.
* **Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Serghides:** Judge Serghides disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention, arguing that the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 is conceptually and functionally distinct from the procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation under Article 8.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Unjustified Data Collection:** The decision reinforces that the collection and storage of personal data by state authorities must be justified, proportionate, and “in accordance with the law.”
* **Coercion and Threats:** The Court makes it clear that using coercive methods and threats to pressure individuals into cooperating with security services is unacceptable and violates Article 8.
* **Effective Investigation:** States have a positive obligation to conduct effective investigations into credible allegations of serious human rights violations, especially when state agents are implicated.
* **Rule of Law:** The decision underscores the importance of the rule of law and the need for state actions to be transparent, predictable, and subject to legal safeguards.

This decision highlights the importance of protecting individuals from arbitrary interference by state security services and ensuring accountability for human rights violations.

CASE OF RIBAREV v. NORTH MACEDONIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Ribarev v. North Macedonia decision:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that North Macedonia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the applicant’s inability to appeal a decision by the State Judicial Council (SJC) dismissing him from his judicial post after the case was sent back for review. The Court determined that while the applicant had an initial appeal, the lack of a further appeal mechanism to ensure the SJC followed the instructions of the first appeal panel undermined the effectiveness of the appeal process, thus impairing the very essence of the right to access a court. The Court emphasized the importance of an independent review of disciplinary decisions concerning judges to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and uphold the rule of law.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the case’s background, including the applicant’s dismissal proceedings, appeals, and the relevant domestic legal framework.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** It details the constitutional and statutory provisions related to the judiciary, the SJC, and the right to appeal in North Macedonia.
* **International Materials:** The decision references various international standards and opinions from bodies like the UN, the Venice Commission, and the Council of Europe, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and the right to appeal disciplinary decisions.
* **Scope of the Case:** The Court clarifies which complaints it will address, excluding those not communicated to the government or those that are not direct developments of the original complaints.
* **Alleged Violations of Article 6:** The Court focuses on the applicant’s complaint regarding the inability to appeal the SJC’s decision after the case was remitted, examining it solely under Article 6 § 1.
* **Admissibility and Merits:** The Court assesses the applicability of Article 6 § 1, determining that the applicant had an arguable right under domestic law to serve an unlimited term of office as a judge. It then examines whether the SJC and the Appeal Panel met the requirements of a “tribunal” under Article 6 § 1.
* **Court’s Assessment:** The Court concludes that the SJC was a “tribunal” but finds a violation of Article 6 § 1 because the applicant’s right to access the Appeal Panel was not effective due to the lack of a mechanism to ensure the SJC complied with the Appeal Panel’s instructions after remittal.
* **Article 41:** The Court notes that the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, so no award is made.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Applicability of Article 6 § 1 to Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judges:** The decision confirms that Article 6 § 1 applies to disciplinary proceedings against judges, particularly concerning their right to serve an unlimited term of office.
* **Requirements for a “Tribunal”:** The judgment reiterates the requirements for a body to be considered a “tribunal” under Article 6 § 1, including independence, impartiality, and the power to make binding decisions.
* **Importance of Effective Access to a Court:** The decision emphasizes that the right of access to a court must be practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory. Limitations on this right must not impair its very essence.
* **Need for Review Mechanisms:** The Court highlights the importance of having a mechanism to ensure that decisions of disciplinary bodies are subject to review by a judicial body with full jurisdiction.
* **Compliance with Instructions on Remittal:** The decision underscores the necessity for a higher court to be able to ascertain whether a lower body has complied with its instructions when a case is remitted for reconsideration.

CASE OF A.G.-Ś. v. POLAND

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of A.G.-Ś. v. Poland, concerning the disclosure of the applicant’s medical records in connection with a criminal investigation against her husband. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. The applicant’s medical information was disclosed to the prosecution service without her knowledge or consent, retained in the case file, and made available to parties in other proceedings. The Court determined that this interference was disproportionate, as the scope of the disclosure exceeded what was necessary, the information was retained for an extended period, and it was disclosed to other persons. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s husband’s criminal charges and the prosecutor’s order to the National Health Fund (NHF) to disclose medical information about the applicant and other relatives. It then details the specific medical information disclosed and the subsequent legal proceedings initiated by the applicant. The Court’s assessment addresses the admissibility of the complaint, rejecting the Government’s argument that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court then examines the merits of the Article 8 complaint, finding that the disclosure constituted an interference with the right to respect for private life. It assesses whether the interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society, ultimately concluding that it was disproportionate. Finally, the Court addresses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, awarding her compensation for non-pecuniary damage but rejecting her claims for costs and expenses due to lack of supporting evidence.

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the proportionality of the interference with the right to respect for private life. The Court emphasized that the scope of the disclosure made by the NHF exceeded the initial request, the retention of the information was prolonged beyond what was necessary, and the subsequent disclosure to other persons was disproportionate to the aim pursued by the prosecution service. This highlights the importance of limiting the scope and duration of data disclosure in criminal investigations and implementing safeguards to protect the confidentiality of sensitive personal information.

CASE OF ASLAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Aslan and Others v. Türkiye*, concerning nine applications related to the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Turkey and the lack of sufficient reasons for these detentions. The Court found that Turkey had violated Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in all nine cases, due to the unreasonably long pre-trial detentions and the formulaic, abstract reasoning provided by domestic courts to justify them. In two of the applications (nos. 18927/21 and 16303/23), the Court also found violations related to other complaints under the Convention, based on its well-established case-law. The Court ordered Turkey to pay the applicants sums ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 250 for costs and expenses in most cases.

The judgment begins with a procedural overview, outlining the case’s origin and the notification to the Turkish Government. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and the insufficient reasons provided for it. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and a detailed examination of the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The Court referenced previous judgments establishing general principles on the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. It distinguished the case of one applicant (no. 12531/24) where the detention was based on a formulaic enumeration of grounds under domestic law. For the remaining applicants, the Court relied on its existing case-law and noted the stereotypical reasoning used by domestic courts. Finally, the judgment addresses other alleged violations in two applications, referencing established case-law, and concludes with the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding compensation to the applicants.

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the ECHR’s stance against excessively long pre-trial detentions and the requirement for domestic courts to provide specific and sufficient reasons for such detentions, rather than relying on abstract or formulaic justifications. The judgment highlights the importance of individualized assessments and adherence to the Convention standards in pre-trial detention cases.

CASE OF BESPALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of *Bespalov and Others v. Russia*:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of assembly, in a series of cases involving disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies. The applicants were subjected to arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies. The Court found that these interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court found violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings, awarding sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicants. The Court emphasized that it retained jurisdiction over these cases because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the alleged violations occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Violation of Article 11:** The Court examined the complaints under Article 11, referencing its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference. It found that the measures taken against the applicants were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, thus violating Article 11.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also addressed other complaints under the Convention, finding violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, based on its well-established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to separately address additional complaints under Article 6 concerning the fairness of administrative proceedings, given the findings of violations under Article 11 and other provisions.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded specific sums to each applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as indicated in the appended table.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Disproportionate Measures:** The decision highlights that measures such as arrests and administrative convictions against organizers and participants of public assemblies can be considered disproportionate violations of Article 11.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The judgment underscores that detaining individuals solely for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offense record, especially when it is not immediately necessary, constitutes unlawful detention and a violation of Article 5.
* **Impartiality of Tribunals:** The decision emphasizes the importance of an impartial tribunal, noting that the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offense proceedings can violate Article 6 of the Convention.
* **Jurisdiction Post-Withdrawal:** The Court reaffirms its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, providing a basis for continued scrutiny of past actions.

**** The decision is related to Russia and has implications for individuals affected by similar violations of their rights to freedom of assembly and fair legal processes.

CASE OF BILOUS v. UKRAINE

Here’s a breakdown of the Bilous v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which concerns the right to property. The case involved an applicant whose property title to land allocated for agricultural purposes was invalidated due to its overlap with a railway exclusion zone. The Court determined that this invalidation, without providing compensation or restitution, imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicant, thereby breaching their property rights. The Court ordered Ukraine to restore the applicant’s title to the property, provide monetary compensation, or offer comparable property.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the application was lodged in 2020 and communicated to the Ukrainian Government.
* **Facts:** It briefly refers to the applicant’s details and information relevant to the application, which are detailed in an appended table.
* **Law:** The Court addresses the applicant’s complaints, initially lodged under Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court decided to examine the complaints solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, focusing on the property rights issue.
* **Reasoning:** The Court references its established case-law on the proportionality of interference with property rights and cites a similar previous case against Ukraine, *Drozdyk and Mikula v. Ukraine*. It emphasizes that the lack of compensation for the invalidated property title was a critical factor in finding a violation.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court outlines the measures Ukraine must take to remedy the violation, prioritizing the restoration of the applicant’s property title. If restoration is not feasible, the state must provide monetary compensation or comparable property.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides specific details about the applicant, the property in question, the grounds for the state’s decision, and the amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Violation of Property Rights:** The core finding is the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the invalidation of property title without compensation.
* **Remedy:** The judgment clearly states the remedies required: restitution of the property title, monetary compensation, or provision of comparable property. The Court prioritizes the restoration of the property title.
* **Compensation:** The judgment specifies that if monetary compensation is chosen, it should be calculated according to domestic valuation requirements and the Court’s practice.
* **Precedent:** The decision references and relies on the principles established in previous cases, particularly *Drozdyk and Mikula v. Ukraine*, highlighting the importance of consistent application of property rights standards.
* **Specific Amounts Awarded:** The appendix provides concrete figures for non-pecuniary damage and costs awarded to the applicant, which can serve as a reference point in similar cases.

**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, particularly concerning property rights and the state’s obligation to provide compensation for the invalidation of property titles.

CASE OF BOGOMOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Bogomolov and Others v. Russia*, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses related to their involvement in public assemblies, arguing that these measures violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court decided to join 18 applications in a single judgment due to their similar subject matter. The ECHR found that Russia had violated Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly, and other articles related to unlawful detention, fair trial, and freedom of expression. The Court highlighted that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” As Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022, the Court clarified that its jurisdiction was limited to facts that occurred before that date.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. The facts section briefly describes the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The “Law” section includes the joinder of applications and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction. It then addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law and previous similar cases where violations were found. The judgment also examines other alleged violations under well-established case-law, such as unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings. Finally, it addresses remaining complaints and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding compensation to most applicants except for one, for whom the finding of a violation was deemed sufficient.

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and other related rights, and the awarding of compensation to the applicants. The Court referenced several previous cases to support its findings, indicating a consistent pattern of violations by Russia in similar situations. The decision also clarifies the Court’s jurisdiction, emphasizing that it only applies to events that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The appended table provides a detailed breakdown of each application, including the applicant’s name, the nature of the public event, the specific administrative offense, and the amount awarded.

CASE OF DMITRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Dmitruk and Others v. Russia decision:

1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on a series of applications concerning disproportionate measures taken against individuals in Russia who organized or participated in public assemblies. The applicants argued that their rights were violated due to arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to breaches of COVID-19 restrictions or participation in rallies supporting Alexei Navalny or against the war in Ukraine. The Court examined these 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. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and delayed review of convictions, awarding sums for damages and costs to the applicants.

2. The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Procedure:** Details the origin of the applications and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Lists the applicants and provides relevant details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** Explains the decision to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** Confirms the Court’s jurisdiction as the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 11 of the Convention:** Analyzes the complaints regarding disproportionate measures against organizers and participants of public assemblies, referencing established case-law and previous similar findings.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** Addresses additional complaints related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality, and other procedural issues, finding violations based on existing case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** States that there is no need to examine separately the remaining additional complaints.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicants.
* **For These Reasons, the Court:** Summarizes the decisions made, including the admissibility of the complaints, the findings of violations, and the orders for compensation.
* **Appendix:** Provides a detailed list of applications, including applicant names, dates of events, offenses, penalties, and amounts awarded.

3. Key provisions of the decision:
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over cases that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention, providing a clear timeline for admissible cases.
* **Violation of Article 11:** The finding that the measures taken against the applicants were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly, even during states of emergency or health crises.
* **Other Violations:** The decision highlights specific issues such as unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals, which are crucial for ensuring fair treatment in similar cases.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded to the applicants serve as a tangible form of redress and a reminder of the consequences of violating human rights.
* **Reference to Previous Case-Law:** The judgment relies heavily on established principles and previous rulings, ensuring consistency and predictability in the Court’s decisions.

**** The decision is related to violation of rights of Ukrainians and pro-Ukrainian activists.

CASE OF DOMOZHIROV AND KOCHKUNOV v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of *Domozhirov and Kochkunov v. Russia*, concerning complaints about the lack of impartiality of tribunals in administrative offense proceedings due to the absence of a prosecuting party. The Court found that the Russian judicial system’s practice of allowing courts to consider administrative offenses without a prosecuting authority is incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Additionally, the applicants raised other complaints related to unlawful detention and restrictions on freedom of expression, which the Court also found to be violations of the Convention based on its well-established case-law. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to deal with the applications as they related to facts that took place before September 16, 2022. The Court awarded sums of money to the applicants as indicated in the appended table.

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by the legal considerations, including the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction. The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, referencing the Karelin v. Russia case. It also examines other alleged violations under well-established case-law, citing relevant precedents. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding compensation. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the applications admissible, holding that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1, and ordering the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts.

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the lack of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings and the confirmation of violations related to unlawful detention and freedom of expression based on established case-law. The decision highlights the incompatibility of the Russian administrative procedure with the Convention’s standards of impartiality. The judgment also reinforces the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, particularly in the context of administrative offenses.

CASE OF DUBINKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Dubinkin and Others v. Russia decision:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention due to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies. The applicants were arrested and convicted for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its well-established case-law. These violations stem from facts that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, thus the Court retained jurisdiction. The Court awarded compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the origin of the applications and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, listing the applicants and details of their complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over the cases. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality. The Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. The decision also addresses other alleged violations under the Convention, specifically unlawful deprivation of liberty and the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings. The Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints under Article 6, given the findings on Article 11 and other violations. Finally, the decision outlines the application of Article 41, awarding specific sums to each applicant as compensation.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The key takeaway is the ECtHR’s confirmation that measures taken by Russian authorities against organizers and participants of public assemblies were disproportionate and violated Article 11 of the Convention. The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and the need for any restrictions to be “necessary in a democratic society.” The judgment also highlights the inadmissibility of unlawful detentions and the necessity of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings. The specific amounts awarded to each applicant, detailed in the appendix, serve as a reference for compensation in similar cases.

**** This decision is related to Russia, but it has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as it concerns the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms, which are particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing conflict and human rights concerns in the region.

CASE OF IVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

Here’s a breakdown of the Ivchenko v. Ukraine decision:

1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant, Mr. Ivchenko, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy to address this issue. The proceedings had been ongoing for over 11 years with only one level of jurisdiction completed. The Court awarded the applicant 4,800 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment outlines the case’s origin, the applicant’s representation, and the notification to the Ukrainian Government.
* **Facts:** It briefly mentions the applicant’s details and the core of the complaint: the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy.
* **Law:** This section details the legal reasoning, referencing Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. It cites previous case law (Nechay v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found. The Court emphasizes the need to assess the reasonableness of proceedings based on complexity, the conduct of parties, and what is at stake for the applicant.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicant, referencing its case-law.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and orders Ukraine to pay the applicant 4,800 euros within three months, with interest on any delayed payment.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a table summarizing the key details of the application, including the applicant’s information, the timeline of proceedings, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The decision reinforces the importance of timely justice and sets a standard for what constitutes an unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings.
* **Violation of Article 13:** It highlights the obligation of states to provide effective remedies for Convention violations, including those related to the length of proceedings.
* **Precedent:** The judgment can be used as a precedent in similar cases against Ukraine or other states where applicants face excessively long proceedings without effective recourse.
* **Compensation:** The awarded amount provides a benchmark for compensation in comparable cases.

**** This decision is important for Ukraine as it highlights systemic issues with the length of legal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies. It may prompt Ukraine to implement reforms to address these issues and prevent future violations. It also provides a basis for other Ukrainian citizens facing similar situations to seek redress before the ECtHR.

CASE OF KALMYKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Kalmykova and Others v. Russia*, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants complained about their arrest and convictions for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies, arguing violations of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that these measures were not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus violated Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to inadequate detention conditions, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and the lack of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings. The Court decided that Russia must pay the applicants certain amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. The facts section details the applicants’ complaints and their representation. The legal analysis includes joinder of the applications, jurisdiction (limited to facts before Russia’s exit from the Convention), and locus standi (allowing Mr. Dadin’s widow to continue his application). The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law and finding a breach. It also covers other alleged violations under well-established case-law, such as conditions of detention and unlawful deprivation of liberty. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs to some applicants.

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 of the Convention due to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies, as well as the violations related to detention conditions and the fairness of administrative proceedings. The Court refers to its established case-law, reinforcing the principles of freedom of assembly and the necessity of proportionate interference. The decision also highlights the Court’s jurisdiction over cases originating before Russia’s departure from the Convention, providing a legal basis for examining past violations.

CASE OF KASHBULLINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Kashbullina and Others v. Russia*, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in St. Petersburg for breaching COVID-19 restrictions. The applicants complained about arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to their participation in public events. The Court examined the complaints under Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and other provisions of the Convention. The ECHR found that the measures taken by Russian authorities were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and delayed review of convictions.

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 details the applicants and their complaints. The “Law” section includes the joinder of applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 11, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, remaining complaints, and the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The Court then states its decision, declaring the complaints admissible, finding violations of Article 11 and other Convention provisions, and ordering the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages. This decision refers to previous case-law, particularly *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, which addressed similar issues, ensuring consistency in the Court’s approach.

The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that the ECHR has jurisdiction over cases against Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The finding of a violation of Article 11 due to disproportionate measures against participants in public assemblies is also significant. Additionally, the decision highlights violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, reinforcing the importance of fair trial principles even in administrative contexts. **** This decision may be relevant to Ukrainian citizens who have faced similar restrictions on freedom of assembly and related rights in Russia or Russian-occupied territories before September 16, 2022.

CASE OF KLOCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Klochkov and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention in the cases of several applicants who were disproportionately penalized for participating in public assemblies near the Kremlin, where such events were prohibited. The applicants were arrested and convicted for administrative offenses. The Court found that these interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court found violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its established case-law. The Court provided varying forms of just satisfaction to the applicants, including declarations of violation and monetary compensation.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Russia concerning events before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies near the Kremlin.
* **Law:**
* The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It affirmed its jurisdiction over the cases, as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* It addressed the issue of *locus standi* (standing to sue) following the death of one applicant, Mr. Dadin, allowing his widow to continue the proceedings.
* The Court analyzed the complaints under Article 11, referencing its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality.
* It cited previous cases with similar issues, such as *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, where violations were found.
* The Court also addressed other alleged violations under its well-established case-law, finding them admissible.
* It determined that some remaining complaints did not need separate examination due to the findings already made.
* The Court applied Article 41, determining just satisfaction for the applicants, including declarations of violation and monetary awards.
* **Decision:** The Court declared violations of Article 11 and other articles based on established case-law, providing different forms of just satisfaction.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Jurisdiction:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over cases related to events before Russia’s exit from the Convention is crucial.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The reaffirmation of principles related to freedom of assembly and the proportionality of interferences, especially in the context of public assemblies near government buildings, is significant.
* **Unlawful Detention and Impartiality:** The findings of violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, particularly the absence of a prosecuting party, are important.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The different forms of just satisfaction awarded, including declarations of violation and monetary compensation, provide guidance on potential remedies in similar cases.
* **Locus Standi:** The acceptance of a widow’s right to continue proceedings on behalf of her deceased husband sets a precedent for similar situations.

**** This decision highlights the importance of freedom of assembly and fair trial principles, even in the context of politically sensitive locations. The decision may have implications for Ukrainians, especially those who have faced similar restrictions on their rights to assembly and due process in Russia or in territories under Russian control. The decision also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar violations by Russia before its withdrawal from the Convention.

CASE OF KONOVALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Konovalov and Others v. Russia, concerning multiple applications related to the disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants primarily complained about violations of their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, citing arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to participation in public events, including those related to COVID-19 restrictions and anti-war protests. The Court found that these measures were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. Additionally, the Court addressed other complaints regarding unlawful detention and fairness of administrative proceedings, finding violations under its well-established case-law. The Court has jurisdiction over these cases because the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the lodging of the applications and notification to the Russian Government. The facts section briefly describes the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law and recent findings in similar cases. It also considers other alleged violations under existing case-law and determines the admissibility of the complaints. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding compensation. The decision concludes with the Court’s unanimous ruling, declarations of admissibility and violations, and orders for compensation. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.

**** The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that the Russian Federation is responsible for violations of human rights that took place before September 16, 2022. This means that the ECtHR retains jurisdiction to examine cases related to events that occurred before this date. The decision also highlights the consistent pattern of violations related to freedom of assembly and unlawful detention in Russia, particularly in the context of public protests. The awarded compensations to the applicants are also important as a form of remedy for the violations they experienced.

CASE OF KYTSKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Here’s a breakdown of the Kytsko and Others v. Ukraine decision:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention in Poltava and Kharkiv pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of effective domestic remedies for these conditions. The applicants complained about issues such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, lack of privacy, and inadequate access to basic necessities. The Court also identified violations related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings for some applicants, highlighting systemic issues within the Ukrainian justice system. The decision emphasizes the State’s obligation to provide acceptable detention conditions and effective remedies for detainees. As a result, the Court awarded compensation to the applicants for the damages suffered.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications that were lodged against Ukraine.
* **Facts:** It outlines the applicants’ complaints regarding detention conditions and lack of effective remedies.
* **Law:**
* The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It addresses the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 13, focusing on the Government’s argument about the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which the Court rejects, citing previous case-law (Sukachov v. Ukraine).
* The Court refers to established principles regarding inadequate detention conditions (Muršić v. Croatia) and the standard of proof required from the Government, including providing cell floor plans and inmate numbers (Ananyev and Others v. Russia).
* The Court concludes that the applicants’ detention conditions were inadequate and that they lacked effective remedies, thus violating Articles 3 and 13.
* For two applications (nos. 7937/24 and 8629/24), the Court addresses other complaints under the Convention, finding additional violations based on well-established case-law.
* **Article 41:** The Court determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicants for damages, referencing Sukachov v. Ukraine.
* **Decision:** The Court declares the applications admissible, holds that there was a breach of Articles 3 and 13, finds violations regarding other complaints, and orders the respondent State to pay the applicants the specified amounts within three months, with interest on any delayed payments.
* **Appendix:** A list of applications, including applicant details, detention facility information, duration of detention, specific grievances, other complaints, and the amount awarded.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance on what constitutes inadequate detention conditions, particularly concerning overcrowding and lack of basic amenities.
* It clarifies the State’s responsibility to provide primary evidence, such as cell floor plans and inmate numbers, to counter allegations of ill-treatment.
* The judgment highlights the importance of effective domestic remedies for detainees to address grievances related to detention conditions.
* The decision awards specific amounts in compensation, which can serve as a reference for similar cases.
* The findings regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies underscore systemic issues within the Ukrainian justice system, which is important for further legal and policy reforms.

**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it addresses systemic issues within its detention facilities and justice system. It serves as a reminder of the State’s obligations under the Convention to ensure humane detention conditions and provide effective remedies for those whose rights have been violated.

CASE OF MASLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Maslova and Others v. Russia*, concerning multiple applications related to the suppression of anti-war protests in St. Petersburg. The applicants, organizers and participants of these public assemblies, alleged that Russia disproportionately applied measures against them for breaching COVID-19 restrictions. The ECtHR examined whether these measures, including arrests and administrative convictions, violated Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly. The Court found that the measures were indeed disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating 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 each applicant between 4,000 and 5,000 euros in damages.

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 briefly describes the applicants and their complaints. The “Law” section includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction, as the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality. It then discusses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, followed by a statement that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding monetary compensation to the applicants. The decision refers to previous case law, particularly *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, to support its findings.

The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that the restrictions imposed on public assemblies, particularly in the context of COVID-19 measures, were disproportionate and violated Article 11 of the Convention. This reaffirms the importance of freedom of assembly, even during public health crises, and sets a precedent for evaluating the necessity and proportionality of restrictions imposed on such freedoms. The decision also highlights the issues of unlawful detention and fairness of administrative proceedings in Russia, awarding compensation to the applicants for these violations. **** This decision could be relevant for future cases involving restrictions on freedom of assembly, particularly in the context of emergency measures or situations affecting Ukrainian citizens who participated in anti-war protests.

CASE OF MIKHAYLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Mikhaylova and Others v. Russia judgment:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case concerns multiple applicants who were subjected to disproportionate measures, such as arrests and administrative convictions, for participating in public assemblies in St. Petersburg. These assemblies often related to political support or anti-war protests and were deemed in breach of regional COVID-19 restrictions. The Court determined that these interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not necessary in a democratic society. Additionally, the Court found violations related to unlawful detention and fairness of administrative proceedings, awarding compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies in St. Petersburg, allegedly violating COVID-19 restrictions.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and violated Article 11 of the Convention. It referenced previous case-law, including *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, to support its findings.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also addressed other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols, finding violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of administrative proceedings, referencing previous case law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address separately additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, considering the findings already made.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as indicated in the appended table.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Violation of Article 11:** The core finding is that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention by disproportionately interfering with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The Court highlighted violations related to unlawful detention, particularly the practice of detaining individuals for the sole purpose of drawing up administrative offense reports.
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The judgment points out issues with the fairness of administrative-offense proceedings, including the lack of impartiality due to the absence of a prosecuting party.
* **Compensation:** The decision establishes that the applicants are entitled to compensation for the violations they experienced, providing a basis for similar cases.

**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians, especially those who have faced similar restrictions on their freedom of assembly or have been subject to administrative penalties for participating in protests or public events, particularly in territories formerly under Russian control or influence.

CASE OF MISHARIN v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Misharin v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention on Human Rights due to disproportionate measures taken against the applicant, Mr. Misharin, for participating in public assemblies. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its well-established case-law. These violations stemmed from Mr. Misharin’s arrest and conviction for administrative offenses related to his involvement in public demonstrations. The Court emphasized that the restrictions on his freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” The decision underscores the importance of protecting the right to peaceful assembly and ensuring fair legal processes. The Court awarded Mr. Misharin compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins by outlining the case’s procedure, including the applicant’s representation and the notification to the Russian Government. It then details the facts of the case, focusing on Mr. Misharin’s complaints regarding disproportionate measures taken against him during public assemblies. The Court addresses the joinder of multiple applications due to their similar subject matter. It confirms its jurisdiction over the case, as the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The core of the decision lies in the analysis of Article 11 violations, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality. The Court also addresses other alleged violations under its well-established case-law, finding them admissible and disclosing further breaches of the Convention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicant.

3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Violation of Article 11:** The Court’s finding that the measures taken against Mr. Misharin for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society” is a key takeaway.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision highlights violations related to unlawful detention, particularly concerning the absence of evidence justifying the detention and exceeding statutory time limits.
* **Lack of Impartiality:** The Court’s finding of a lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, specifically the absence of a prosecuting party, is significant.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states that it has jurisdiction to deal with applications related to facts that took place before September 16, 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.
* **Compensation:** The decision awards the applicant compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, reinforcing the principle of redress for Convention violations.

I hope this analysis is helpful.

CASE OF MOSKOVKO v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Moskovko v. Russia, concerning the impartiality of a tribunal in administrative offense proceedings where the prosecuting party was absent. The applicant, Mr. Moskovko, alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to this lack of impartiality. The ECtHR found that the absence of a prosecuting authority in administrative offense proceedings, which fall under the criminal limb of Article 6, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality. Consequently, the Court declared the complaint admissible and found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court also dismissed the applicant’s other complaints as inadmissible. Russia was ordered to pay the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

The judgment begins with the procedural history, outlining the application’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by the Court’s legal analysis, which includes considerations of jurisdiction and the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court references its established case-law, particularly the Karelin v. Russia case, to support its reasoning. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, addressing just satisfaction, and the operative provisions, which declare the admissibility of the Article 6 § 1 complaint, find a violation, and order compensation. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the text.

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principle that administrative offense proceedings falling under the criminal limb of Article 6 require the presence of a prosecuting authority to ensure the tribunal’s impartiality. This reinforces the standards for fair trial rights in administrative offense cases within the Convention framework.

CASE OF RADICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Radics and Others v. Hungary, concerning nine applications related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings in Hungary. The applicants primarily argued that the duration of their criminal proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The Court, referencing its established case-law and a previous similar case against Hungary (Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary), found that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases was indeed excessive and thus constituted a breach of Article 6 § 1. Additionally, some applicants raised other complaints, particularly regarding the lack of effective remedies in domestic law for the excessive length of proceedings, which the Court also found to be violations of the Convention. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 1,800 to EUR 5,500 as just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the origin of the applications and the notification to the Hungarian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, including a list of applicants and details of their applications. The “Law” section covers the joinder of the applications, the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, and other alleged violations under well-established case-law. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which concerns just satisfaction. The judgment refers extensively to previous case-law, particularly the Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary case, to support its findings. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this appears to be the initial judgment on these applications.

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the acknowledgment of other violations related to the lack of effective remedies for such delays. The specific amounts awarded to each applicant are also significant, as they set a precedent for compensation in similar cases. Furthermore, the reiteration of the principles established in Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary reinforces the Court’s stance on the issue of lengthy proceedings in the Hungarian legal system.

CASE OF SEMENOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Here’s a breakdown of the Semenov and Others 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 within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicants complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective domestic remedies to address this issue. The Court joined eleven similar applications, finding that the length of the proceedings was indeed excessive and that the applicants did not have access to effective remedies to expedite these proceedings. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

**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.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the key facts of the applications, focusing on the applicants’ complaints regarding the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It references the Court’s established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. The Court refers to its previous judgment in *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court addressed additional complaints raised in one of the applications (no. 9200/20), finding them inadmissible as they did not meet the criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the appropriate amounts to be awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, referencing its case-law, particularly the *Karnaushenko* case.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* The Court declared the complaints regarding the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies admissible.
* It held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
* It ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts for non-pecuniary damage within three months, along with default interest.
* **Appendix:** The judgment includes an appendix listing the applications, detailing the applicants’ names, dates of birth, representatives, the duration of the proceedings, the levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amounts awarded.

**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Confirmation of Systemic Problem:** The judgment underscores the ongoing issue of excessively lengthy civil proceedings in Ukraine and the absence of effective domestic remedies. This confirms a systemic problem that has been previously identified by the ECtHR.
* **Criteria for Assessing “Reasonable Time”:** The judgment reiterates the established criteria for assessing whether the length of proceedings is “reasonable” under Article 6 § 1, providing a framework for evaluating similar cases.
* **Award of Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for awarding compensation to individuals who have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of excessively lengthy proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in Ukraine. The amounts awarded in this case can serve as a benchmark for future cases.
* **Timeframes and Interest:** The judgment specifies the timeframe for payment (three months) and the applicable default interest rate, which is crucial for ensuring compliance.
* **Reference to Karnaushenko v. Ukraine:** The judgment’s reliance on the *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine* case highlights the continuity of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on this issue and reinforces the need for Ukraine to address the systemic problems identified in these cases.

**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights the continuing problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the ineffectiveness of remedies in Ukraine. This has implications for Ukrainians seeking justice and for Ukraine’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

CASE OF SERGEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Here’s a breakdown of the Sergeyev and Others v. Russia decision:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of assembly, in the cases of several applicants. These individuals were disproportionately penalized for participating in public events, often related to protests, allegedly breaching COVID-19 restrictions. The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests and administrative convictions, were not “necessary in a democratic society.” 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 monetary compensation to each applicant for the damages suffered.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for organizing or participating in public assemblies, particularly concerning breaches of COVID-19 restrictions.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures against the applicants violated their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11. It referenced previous case-law, including *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, which dealt with similar issues regarding COVID-19 restrictions and public assemblies.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations under other articles of the Convention and its Protocols, based on well-established case-law, concerning unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the absence of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address additional complaints under Article 6, given the findings of violations under Article 11 and other provisions.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court ordered Russia to pay specific amounts to each applicant as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly (Article 11):** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly, even during times of public health restrictions, and emphasizes that any limitations must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
* **Unlawful Detention (Article 5):** The decision highlights instances where the detention of individuals was deemed unlawful, particularly concerning the procedures followed after arrests at public events.
* **Fair Trial Issues (Article 6 and Protocol 7):** The judgment points out concerns regarding the impartiality of tribunals in administrative offense proceedings and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention, which are important considerations for ensuring fair trials.
* **Compensation (Article 41):** The decision sets a precedent for awarding compensation to individuals who have suffered violations of their rights related to freedom of assembly and associated issues.

**** This decision may be relevant for Ukrainian citizens who have faced similar restrictions on freedom of assembly and potential violations of related rights, particularly in the context of administrative or criminal proceedings.

CASE OF SHTEFAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Shtefan and Others v. Ukraine:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian law to address this issue. The Court found that the length of the proceedings was indeed excessive and that the applicants did not have access to effective remedies to expedite the process. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants various sums in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications that were lodged with the Court.
* **Facts:** The facts section briefly outlines that the applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Locus Standi:** The Court allowed Ms. Tetyana Yevgenivna Suchkova to continue the application on behalf of her deceased father, Mr. Yevgen Ivanovych Suchkov.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This section forms the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses the complaints under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) and Article 13 (effective remedy). It references previous case law, particularly Nechay v. Ukraine, to support its findings.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts of compensation to be awarded to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage, referencing its case-law, particularly Bevz v. Ukraine.
* **Operative Part:** The Court declares the applications admissible, holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and orders Ukraine to pay the specified amounts to the applicants within three months, with interest accruing thereafter in case of default.
* **Appendix:** A table lists the applications, including the applicants’ details, dates of proceedings, length of proceedings, levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amounts awarded.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The Court reaffirms that criminal proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time, considering the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and what is at stake for the applicant.
* **Violation of Article 13:** The Court emphasizes the importance of effective remedies for individuals who claim that the length of proceedings is excessive.
* **Compensation:** The judgment provides a clear indication of the amounts the Court considers reasonable for non-pecuniary damage in cases involving lengthy criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies in Ukraine. The amounts vary based on the length of the proceedings and the number of jurisdictional levels involved.
* **Locus Standi:** The decision confirms that family members can continue an application on behalf of a deceased applicant, provided it aligns with the Court’s established case law.

**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, as it addresses systemic issues within the Ukrainian legal system regarding the length of criminal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies.

CASE OF SIVKA v. UKRAINE

Here’s a breakdown of the Sivka v. Ukraine decision:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention in the case of Ms. Sivka against Ukraine. The case concerned the State Pension Fund’s decision to recover pension amounts paid to Ms. Sivka under an early-retirement scheme, arguing she was not eligible due to her prior registration as an entrepreneur. The Court found that the recovery of these funds was a disproportionate interference with her property rights because the domestic courts failed to adequately address her arguments that she was effectively unemployed and that the pension application form did not require her to disclose her entrepreneurial status. The ECtHR emphasized that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient reasoning for their decision, leading to a violation of her rights. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay Ms. Sivka EUR 656 for pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Outlines the issue of the pension fund recovering early-retirement payments from the applicant.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Focuses on the applicant’s complaint regarding the violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.
* **The Parties’ Submissions:** Summarizes the arguments presented by both the Ukrainian Government and Ms. Sivka.
* **Admissibility:** The Court found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable, as the applicant had a legitimate expectation to receive the pension. It rejected the government’s argument that the applicant had contributed to the situation by not disclosing her entrepreneurial status, noting that the authorities had not established any bad faith on her part.
* **Merits:** The Court focused on whether the interference was proportionate. It found that the domestic courts had not adequately addressed the applicant’s arguments, particularly regarding her unemployment status and the lack of a specific question about entrepreneurial status on the pension application form.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
* **Decision:** Declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and orders Ukraine to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Legitimate Expectation:** The decision reinforces that a favorable evaluation of a pension request can generate a property right, giving rise to a legitimate expectation.
* **Proportionality of Interference:** The ECtHR emphasized that any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, such as the recovery of overpaid social benefits, must be proportionate.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment highlights the importance of domestic courts providing meaningful judicial review, especially when dealing with issues affecting property rights. Courts must address the arguments presented by the individual and provide adequate reasoning for their decisions.
* **Duty to Investigate:** The Court considered that the authorities should have been aware of the applicant’s status as an entrepreneur, as the information was available in the State register.

**** This decision may be relevant for Ukrainians facing similar situations regarding pension disputes and the recovery of social benefits. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for domestic courts to provide reasoned decisions that address the specific arguments raised by applicants.

CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Okay, I will provide you with the analysis of the decision in the case of Sokolov 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 being denied access to higher courts due to the excessively formalistic application of procedural rules regarding the time limits for lodging appeals. Specifically, appellate courts dismissed their appeals as time-barred, even though the applicants had not received the full text of the first instance judgments in a timely manner, making it impossible for them to lodge appeals within the prescribed period. The ECtHR concluded that these limitations impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court. In one case (Radchenko), the Court also found violations regarding the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedy in domestic law. The Court awarded sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs to the applicants.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the origin of the applications and the notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding the denial of access to higher courts. The legal analysis section addresses the joinder of the applications and the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, referencing established case-law to support its findings. The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. It also addresses other alleged violations in one of the applications (no. 3159/19), finding additional breaches of the Convention. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to join the applications, declare them admissible, and hold that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and other violations, as well as ordering the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts. An appendix lists the applications, providing details such as the applicant’s name, the specific irregularity complained of, relevant case-law, and the amounts awarded.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provision is the finding that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by denying applicants access to higher courts through excessively formalistic application of procedural rules. The Court emphasized that limitations to the right of access to a court must not impair the very essence of that right. The judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals have a real opportunity to appeal decisions, which includes providing timely access to the full text of judgments. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not be applied in a way that prevents individuals from exercising their right to a fair trial. The decision also highlights the obligation of the first-instance court to provide a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.

CASE OF TUMASHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Tumashova and Others v. Russia*, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses related to participating in public events that allegedly breached COVID-19 restrictions. The ECHR found that these measures violated Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly. The Court also addressed other complaints related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of administrative proceedings, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. The Court held that it had jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, listing the applicants and details of their applications. The “Law” section includes the joinder of the applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 11, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, remaining complaints, and the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The decision references previous case-law, including *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, which also dealt with COVID-19-related restrictions on assemblies. The judgment concludes by declaring the complaints admissible, finding violations of Article 11 and other Convention articles, and ordering Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 regarding freedom of assembly and the findings related to unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 5) and fairness of proceedings (Article 6). The Court reiterated that the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” The decision also highlights the lack of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings due to the absence of a prosecuting party and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences. These findings reinforce the importance of protecting fundamental rights, even in the context of public health restrictions, and ensuring fair legal processes.

CASE OF VLASOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Vlasov and Others v. Russia, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. 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 Convention. The Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus constituting a breach of Article 11. Additionally, some applicants raised other complaints related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality of tribunals, and restrictions on freedom of expression, which the Court also found to be violations of the Convention based on its well-established case-law. The Court decided to join the applications and declared some complaints admissible while rejecting others.

The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of the applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 11, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, remaining complaints, and application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The decision references previous case-law, such as Frumkin v. Russia, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, to support its findings regarding the violation of Article 11. It also cites cases like Butkevich v. Russia, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, and Korneyeva v. Russia to address other violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of proceedings. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions within the document.

The main provisions of the decision are the findings of violations of Article 11 regarding freedom of assembly and other violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality, and restrictions on freedom of expression. The Court held that the measures taken against the applicants were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society. The decision also outlines the amounts to be paid to the applicants as just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians, especially those who have faced similar restrictions on their freedom of assembly and expression in territories formerly or currently under Russian control. The findings of the ECHR could be used as a precedent in cases involving similar violations against Ukrainian citizens.