Review of ECHR decisions for 10/01/2025

1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns a legislative intervention by San Marino affecting proceedings regarding career reconstruction and remuneration of military personnel. The European Court of Human Rights found that the enactment of law no. 88/2016, which modified the outcome of pending proceedings in the State’s favor, violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). The Court determined that the State had not provided sufficiently compelling reasons to justify the retrospective application of the law to pending proceedings.2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision examines two main complaints:- Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) – which was found admissible and violated- Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) – which was found inadmissibleThe Court focused on whether:- The legislative intervention occurred during pending proceedings- There were compelling grounds of general interest to justify such intervention- The interference created a disproportionate burden on the applicants3. Key provisions for practical use:
– Legislative intervention in pending proceedings requires compelling grounds of general interest to be justified- Financial considerations alone cannot warrant legislature substituting itself for courts- When an administrative authority’s decision is a necessary preliminary for bringing a case before a tribunal, that period must be taken into account when determining if proceedings were pending- The State’s argument that treating similar situations equally is in general interest was not sufficient justification for retrospective application- The Court awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to compensate for loss of real opportunities due to unfair proceedings

The case concerns a property dispute between the Federation of Trade Unions of Chernihiv Region and the Ukrainian state over a building constructed during Soviet times. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).The key aspects of the decision are:

• The Court found that depriving the trade union organization of its property rights to the building was not lawful due to the absence of clear legislative regulation regarding the status of former Soviet trade unions’ property in Ukraine
• The Court questioned whether there was a genuine public interest in depriving the organization of its property, especially since the building was being used for statutory activities serving society’s interests
• The Court determined that the trade union organization was a bona fide owner of the property, having obtained formal ownership documents in 2002 and used the building for decades

The most significant provisions of the decision include:

• The Court reaffirmed that mistakes made by state authorities should benefit the affected persons and not be remedied at their expense
• The mere fact that the organization could continue using the building after losing ownership rights did not compensate for the violation of property rights
• The Court emphasized that the lack of clear domestic legislation on the status of former Soviet trade unions’ property was a key factor in finding the violation

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on the case of Nikolayenko v. Ukraine concerning the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage during court hearings in 2019. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) by placing the applicant, who was serving a life sentence, in a metal cage during four court hearings at the Desnyanskyi District Court of Chernihiv. The Court’s decision is structured around three main aspects: admissibility of the complaint, assessment of merits, and application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection about non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and found the application admissible. The key provisions of the decision are:

• The Court reaffirmed its position that holding a person in a metal cage during trial constitutes an affront to human dignity and breaches Article 3 of the Convention, regardless of any security considerations
• The Court emphasized that using metal cages was a standard procedure in Ukraine that did not include assessment of actual and specific security risks
• Despite the applicant serving a sentence for murder, the Government failed to provide evidence of any specific security risks requiring cage confinement
• The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage