Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Kolesnichenko v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined complaints from two Ukrainian nationals, Vasyl and Vadym Kolesnichenko, regarding the alleged illegal entry into their apartment by police, seizure of their property, and failure of the police to prevent private individuals from removing their belongings. The applicants argued violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of the civil proceedings. However, it deemed the remainder of the application inadmissible, concluding that the applicants had already been compensated at the national level for some of the damages and that the domestic courts’ decisions were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the applicants’ complaints regarding the police actions and the removal of property from their apartment.
* **Facts:** Presents a chronological account of the events, including the forced entry into the apartment, the police’s involvement, and the subsequent legal proceedings.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine both applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Standing of the second applicant to pursue the first applicant’s application:** The Court accepted that the second applicant has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late first applicant’s stead.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The Court found the complaint admissible and concluded that the length of the proceedings (over twelve years) was unreasonable, constituting a violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Alleged Violations of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The Court deemed this part of the application inadmissible. It noted that the applicants had already received compensation for the unlawful entry and seizure of the safety box. The Court also found that the domestic courts’ refusal to award compensation for property removed by private individuals was not arbitrary, especially since the applicants did not pursue claims against those individuals.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded the second applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It found that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant and dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Length of Proceedings (Article 6 § 1):** The decision reinforces the principle that civil proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time. The Court highlighted that repeated remittals of a case for fresh consideration indicate a serious deficiency in the judicial system.
* **Victim Status (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1):** The judgment clarifies that compensation at the national level can remove an applicant’s “victim” status, preventing the ECtHR from further examining the case, provided the national authorities have acknowledged and redressed the breach of the Convention.
* **Burden of Proof:** The Court emphasized that applicants must provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. In this case, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the domestic courts’ decisions regarding compensation were arbitrary or unreasonable.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
