CASE OF BABYCH v. UKRAINE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Babych v. Ukraine, concerning a travel ban imposed on the applicant due to his failure to repay a debt. The Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to freedom of movement. The applicant had been prohibited from leaving Ukraine since 2013, following a court decision related to his debt. Despite the applicant obtaining Romanian citizenship and being able to cross the border on several occasions, the travel ban remained in force. The Court emphasized that the restriction was not sufficiently justified and could not be reconsidered before the debt repayment, thus violating the applicant’s right to leave the country.
The decision is structured around the applicant’s complaints regarding the violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and Article 8 (right to family life) of the Convention. The Court first addresses the admissibility of the complaints, declaring the complaint regarding freedom of movement admissible and the one regarding family life inadmissible. It then assesses the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, referencing similar cases and concluding that the travel ban was not justified or proportionate. The Court also dismisses the complaint under Article 8, noting that the applicant’s family’s relocation occurred after the imposition of the ban and that they were aware of the consequences. The decision concludes with a statement that the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principles regarding restrictions on freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The Court emphasizes that any interference with a person’s right to leave their country must be justified and proportionate from the outset and throughout its duration. The decision highlights that obtaining another nationality and occasional border crossings do not automatically remedy an unjustified travel ban. This case underscores the importance of ensuring that travel restrictions are regularly reviewed and are proportionate to the circumstances, especially in cases involving debt repayment. **** This decision has implications for Ukraine, requiring its authorities to ensure that travel bans are justified, proportionate, and subject to review, particularly in the context of enforcement proceedings.
CASE OF C.F. ‘BV FIDUCIAR INVEST’ S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of C.F. ‘BV FIDUCIAR INVEST’ S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case revolves around a Moldovan investment company, C.F. ‘BV Fiduciar Invest’ S.A., whose registration as a nominal holder of shares in another company was annulled by domestic courts in administrative proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that while the investment company did not have a property right (“possession”) over the shares themselves, the domestic courts violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) by failing to provide reasons for rejecting the company’s argument that administrative courts lacked jurisdiction over the case, which concerned private law matters. The ECtHR awarded the applicant company compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns the annulment of the applicant company’s representation of shareholders in administrative proceedings.
* **Background:** The applicant company, an investment trust, bought shares in a State company using patrimonial parts received from private individuals. These shares were registered under the applicant company’s name as a nominal holder.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The State company initiated administrative proceedings, arguing that the record of shares did not confirm the transfer of shares to the applicant company. The domestic court annulled the applicant company’s registration as the nominal holder of the shares.
* **Applicant Company’s Arguments:** The applicant company argued that the administrative courts lacked jurisdiction because the case involved civil law issues. It also claimed a violation of its property rights.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* The ECtHR found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) was not applicable because the applicant company was not the owner of the shares.
* However, Article 6 § 1 was applicable because the applicant company had a direct interest in the proceedings, as the outcome affected its ability to manage shares and receive payment for its services.
* The ECtHR held that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the applicant company’s argument about the lack of jurisdiction of the administrative courts, thus violating Article 6 § 1.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded the applicant company EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 272 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Applicability of Article 6 § 1:** The decision clarifies that Article 6 § 1 can apply even if the applicant does not have a “possession” in the traditional sense, as long as the outcome of the proceedings directly affects their rights and interests.
* **Duty to Provide Reasons:** The decision emphasizes the importance of domestic courts providing reasons for their judgments, especially when a party raises a relevant argument concerning jurisdiction.
* **Distinction Between Administrative and Civil Matters:** The ECtHR highlighted that contractual relationships between shareholders and trusts, as well as among private companies regarding shares, generally concern private or civil law matters.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF DZYON v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the Dzyon v. Ukraine decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined a case concerning the death of a Ukrainian police investigator, the applicant’s son, at his workplace. The applicant alleged that State agents were responsible for his son’s death and that the investigation into the incident was ineffective, violating Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life). The Court found a violation of Article 2 under its procedural limb due to the ineffectiveness of the investigation, which was protracted, lacked thoroughness, and failed to address key issues. However, the Court found no violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb, as there was insufficient evidence to conclude that State agents were directly responsible for the death or that the authorities knew or should have known of a real and immediate risk to the son’s life.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the background of the case, including the applicant’s details and the nature of the complaint.
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the factual circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s son, including his employment, the incident itself, and the subsequent investigations. This section outlines the various stages of the domestic investigation, including forensic examinations, witness testimonies, and court proceedings.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 2:** States that the complaints fall to be examined under the procedural and substantive limbs of Article 2 of the Convention.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the application admissible, finding that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded.
* **Merits:**
* **Procedural Limb of Article 2:** Focuses on the effectiveness of the investigation. The Court highlights the length of the investigation (over 15 years), the domestic court’s criticism of the investigation’s deficiencies, and specific failures, such as not examining claims of potential involvement of the son’s colleagues.
* **Substantive Limb of Article 2:** Addresses whether the State failed to protect the life of the applicant’s son. The Court notes that the evidence does not allow it to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that State agents were responsible for the death. It also notes the absence of evidence suggesting the authorities should have anticipated a risk to the son’s life.
* **Application of Article 41:** States that the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, so no sum is awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Procedural Obligation:** The decision reinforces the State’s obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into deaths, especially when they occur in circumstances that raise questions about potential State involvement.
* **Effectiveness of Investigation:** The decision highlights key elements of an effective investigation, including promptness, thoroughness, independence, and addressing all relevant lines of inquiry.
* **Standard of Proof:** The decision reiterates the standard of proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”) applied by the Court but also acknowledges that strong presumptions of fact can arise when events occur within the exclusive knowledge or control of the authorities.
* **Substantive Obligation:** The decision clarifies the circumstances under which the State has a duty to take preventive measures to protect an individual’s life, particularly in cases of potential suicide or violence.
This decision underscores the importance of States conducting thorough and timely investigations into suspicious deaths and highlights the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of such investigations under Article 2 of the Convention.
CASE OF FORNACI MARZO ’88 S.P.A. v. ITALY
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Fornaci Marzo ‘88 S.p.A. v. Italy:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns an Italian company’s complaint regarding the prolonged occupation and alteration of its land by the State authorities for the construction of a landfill, starting in 1995. Despite several court rulings annulling the initial occupation order and subsequent acquisition attempts, the State continued to possess and use the land as a landfill. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that this situation constituted a deprivation of property without due process, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The Court highlighted the excessive length of the proceedings and the State’s failure to enforce court judgments, leading to prolonged uncertainty regarding the company’s property rights. The issue of compensation was not fully resolved, and the Court reserved its decision on Article 41 regarding damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case revolves around the occupation of the applicant company’s land for a landfill.
* **Background:** The land was seized in 1995 during a waste crisis in the Campania Region. The company challenged the seizure through administrative and civil courts.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** Several judgments were issued by Italian courts, including the Council of State and the Administrative Court, regarding the legality of the occupation and the possibility of restitution or acquisition of the land.
* **ECHR Assessment:**
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible, rejecting the Government’s objections regarding victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Merits:** The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, noting that the deprivation of property was not carried out “in good and due form” due to the annulled expropriation procedures and the lack of a formal act of transfer of ownership to the State.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court reserved the decision on compensation, inviting the parties to submit further observations and valuations of the property.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Property Rights:** The decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures when depriving someone of their property. The State’s failure to formalize the acquisition of the land, despite its continued occupation and use, was a key factor in the finding of a violation.
* **Length of Proceedings:** The ECtHR emphasized that excessively long proceedings can undermine the effectiveness of remedies related to property rights. The 27-year delay in resolving the case was a significant concern.
* **Enforcement of Judgments:** The decision highlights the State’s obligation to enforce court judgments promptly. The continued failure to enforce judgments ordering the restitution or acquisition of the land contributed to the violation.
* **Compensation:** While the Court did not make a final decision on compensation, it indicated that the applicant company is entitled to compensation for the deprivation of property. The valuation of the property, including the affected and unaffected areas, will be crucial in determining the amount of compensation.
This decision serves as a reminder to states of their obligations to respect property rights, follow due process, and ensure the prompt enforcement of court judgments.
CASE OF MARTYNOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Martynovskiy v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerned a Ukrainian lawyer, Mr. Martynovskiy, whose license was temporarily suspended for failing to attend a meeting of the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (HQDCB). He argued that this suspension violated his rights under Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found no violation of Article 8 (right to private and family life) because the suspension was temporary and did not have a severe enough impact on his professional life. However, the Court did find a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) due to the excessive length of the proceedings related to his appeals against the suspension.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s profession, the reasons for the license suspension, and the domestic proceedings he pursued.
* It then details the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention.
* The Court presents the arguments of both the applicant and the Ukrainian Government.
* The Court’s assessment is divided into sections addressing Article 8 and Article 6 separately.
* Regarding Article 8, the Court applies a “consequence-based approach,” finding that the suspension did not reach the threshold of severity to constitute an interference with his private life.
* Regarding Article 6, the Court examines the length of the proceedings, finding them excessive and in violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. It also dismisses other complaints under Article 6 as manifestly ill-founded.
* Finally, the Court addresses Article 41 (just satisfaction), ruling that the finding of a violation is sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 8 and Professional Life:** The decision clarifies the threshold for when measures affecting a person’s professional life (like a temporary suspension) can be considered an interference with their right to private life. The consequences must be “very serious” and affect private life to a “very significant degree.”
* **Article 6 and Length of Proceedings:** The decision reinforces the importance of timely resolution of legal proceedings. Even if the applicant contributed to delays, the Court emphasized that domestic courts should consider the overall length of the proceedings, including the time spent in various bodies of the Bar.
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision highlights that applicants bear the responsibility to provide evidence substantiating the consequences of the impugned measure and to demonstrate that the threshold of severity was attained in their case.
**** This decision relates to the violation of the Convention by Ukrainian authorities.
CASE OF PETKANYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of *Petkanych and Others v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Ukraine failed to conduct effective investigations into alleged medical negligence that led to the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. The Court found violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life, specifically focusing on the state’s procedural obligations to investigate deaths. The investigations were marred by delays, shortcomings, and failures to establish key facts, undermining the ability to determine responsibility for the deaths. The Court joined four similar applications, addressing complaints about ineffective domestic investigations into medical negligence resulting in deaths. While some complaints were deemed inadmissible, the core issue of ineffective investigations was upheld.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Preliminary Issues:** The Court addressed the issue of an applicant’s death during proceedings, allowing his daughter to continue the application on his behalf. A new complaint introduced late in the proceedings was deemed inappropriate for consideration in this case.
* **Admissibility:** The Court assessed the admissibility of the complaints, particularly concerning victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies. One applicant was deemed not to have sufficient connection to the deceased to claim victim status.
* **Merits:** The Court examined the substance of the complaints under Article 2, referencing its established principles on state procedural obligations in healthcare contexts. It found that the domestic proceedings had significant shortcomings, leading to a violation of Article 2.
* **Other Complaints:** The Court decided it was unnecessary to examine a separate complaint under Article 3 regarding inhuman treatment, as the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court addressed claims for compensation, awarding specific amounts for non-pecuniary damage and costs, while dismissing other claims as unsubstantiated.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Procedural Obligation under Article 2:** The judgment reinforces the State’s duty to conduct thorough and effective investigations into deaths potentially caused by medical negligence.
* **Ineffective Investigations:** The decision highlights specific shortcomings that can render an investigation ineffective, such as excessive delays, failure to gather essential facts, and reliance on flawed expert opinions.
* **Victim Status:** The judgment clarifies the criteria for determining who can be considered a victim in cases involving alleged violations of the right to life, particularly in the context of family relationships.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The decision provides guidance on the amounts that may be awarded for non-pecuniary damage in cases of ineffective investigations into medical negligence.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and highlights the importance of effective investigations into medical negligence cases, which is particularly relevant in the context of ongoing challenges within the Ukrainian healthcare system.
