Review of ECHR decisions for 24/01/2025

CASE OF REZNIK v. UKRAINE

The case concerns a search conducted at a lawyer’s home in Ukraine in 2013 in connection with criminal proceedings against his client. The Court found violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.The key aspects of the decision are:

The search warrant was overly broad and lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the belief that relevant evidence would be found at the lawyer’s premises
The seizure and examination of electronic devices potentially containing privileged material was done without adequate safeguards
The devices were kept by authorities for an unjustifiably long period
There was no effective remedy available to challenge the lawfulness of the search warrant

The main provisions of the decision include:

The Court emphasized that searches of lawyers’ premises require especially strict scrutiny to protect legal privilege
While acknowledging improvements in Ukrainian legislation since previous cases, the Court found serious deficiencies remained in protecting legal professional privilege during searches
The Court awarded €6,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,450 for legal costs to the first applicant
The complaints by other family members living in the same apartment were dismissed as manifestly ill-founded

The decision highlights the need for specific safeguards when searching lawyers’ premises, particularly regarding electronic data that may contain privileged information. It also emphasizes the importance of having effective remedies to challenge search warrants affecting lawyers.

CASE OF SUREN ANTONYAN v. ARMENIA

The decision concerns the case of Suren Antonyan v. Armenia regarding the dismissal of a judge following disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The Court examined three main aspects:

Whether the SJC satisfied the requirements of an independent tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Whether the applicant was denied access to a court due to inability to appeal SJC decisions
Whether the SJC lacked impartiality due to its Chair’s relationship with the Minister of Justice who brought the disciplinary proceedings

The Court’s key findings were:

The SJC qualified as an independent tribunal despite some deficiencies in the nomination process of non-judicial members
The applicant was not denied access to a court since the SJC itself qualified as a tribunal under Article 6
There was a violation regarding impartiality due to the close personal and business relationship between the SJC Chair and the Minister of Justice who initiated the proceedings

The most significant aspects of the decision are:

Confirmation that a judicial council can qualify as a tribunal under Article 6 even if not part of regular court system
Equal representation of judicial and non-judicial members in a judicial council is acceptable
Close personal/business relationships between disciplinary body members and those bringing charges must be disclosed and addressed
The Court awarded €3,600 in non-pecuniary damages and indicated that reopening proceedings would be appropriate redress

CASE OF DI GABRIELE AND OTHERS v. ITALY

The case concerns the deprivation of land owned by three Italian nationals in the Frattamaggiore municipality, where the authorities failed to provide final compensation for the expropriation over an extended period.The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because after 37 years since the occupation of their land, the applicants had not received a final determination of compensation due to them. The Court emphasized that taking property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value constitutes a disproportionate interference with property rights.Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court awarded the applicants jointly €2,907,419 for pecuniary damage, based on expert valuations of both the expropriation and prior occupation compensation
Additional €5,000 was awarded for non-pecuniary damage and €10,000 for legal costs
The Court rejected the government’s argument about possible duplication of payments, noting that domestic courts could take into account any amounts already paid
The Court found it unnecessary to examine other complaints about legislative interference and procedural formalism, having addressed the main legal questions

The decision establishes that excessive delays in determining and paying compensation for expropriated property, combined with orders to return previously received compensation, constitute a violation of property rights under the Convention, even when formal expropriation orders exist.

CASE OF SVERDLOVA AND SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

The case concerns a dispute over the organization of an LGBTI rights ‘Equality March’ in Kyiv in 2013. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.The Court determined that the ban on demonstrations in Kyiv’s city center, which forced organizers to change the venue, constituted an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 11. The Court found that the legal provisions used by Ukrainian courts (Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice) did not meet Convention requirements for quality of law and were insufficient grounds for restricting freedom of assembly.Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court rejected the government’s argument that since the march still took place (in a different location), there was no violation of rights. The Court noted that the change of venue meant the rally couldn’t receive proper police protection against possible opponents.
The Court found no discriminatory motives in the court’s decision to ban all public events in the city center, as it affected both pro and anti-LGBTI demonstrations equally.
The Court determined that Ukraine violated Article 13 because the applicants had no effective means to appeal the ban before their planned event date.
The Court awarded each applicant €6,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €2,400 for costs and expenses.

CASE OF FRAGGOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Fraggopoulos and Others v. Greece, concerning the conditions of detention at Diavata Prison in Thessaloniki. The Court found that Greece violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to poor detention conditions of six applicants during various periods between 2015 and 2017.The decision addresses several key aspects of detention conditions, including:

Overcrowding (less than 3 sq. m. of personal space)
Poor infrastructure (uncovered prison yard, absence of common room)
Inadequate living conditions (poor food quality, lack of proper heating and air-conditioning)
Insufficient medical treatment, particularly regarding detoxification treatment

The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage to all six applicants, ranging from €1,400 to €6,300, depending on the duration of their detention. The amounts were calculated based on established case law principles, particularly referencing the Muršić v. Croatia case. The Court dismissed the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses due to lack of supporting documentation.The judgment is significant as it continues the Court’s consistent approach to detention conditions in Greek prisons, following previous similar violations found in cases concerning Diavata Prison. The Court emphasized that the conditions amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly noting that no significant improvements occurred despite the implementation of Law 4322/2015 on prison reform.

CASE OF KOPTYELOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Koptyelov and Others v. Ukraine, which consolidated eight separate applications concerning excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and lack of effective remedies for such violations.The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in all cases. The proceedings in question lasted between 5 years 8 months and 11 years 2 months, which the Court deemed excessive and failing to meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.The Court’s analysis was based on established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length, including case complexity, conduct of parties, and what was at stake for the applicants. Following its previous case-law, particularly Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, the Court found no justification for such lengthy proceedings.Key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court’s confirmation that Ukraine lacks effective domestic remedies for complaints about lengthy civil proceedings
Award of compensation ranging from 300 to 4,200 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage
Requirement for Ukraine to pay the awarded amounts within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment

The judgment also addressed additional complaints under Article 3 in application no. 11163/22, which were declared inadmissible. The Court maintained its consistent approach to similar cases, reinforcing the principle that excessive length of proceedings constitutes a violation of the Convention.

CASE OF RAYCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Raychenko and Others v. Ukraine, which consolidated 15 similar applications concerning disproportionate sanctions in customs cases. The cases involved situations where applicants failed to declare cash exceeding the permitted limit of 10,000 euros when crossing Ukrainian borders, resulting in both confiscation of the undeclared amounts and monetary fines.The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) in all cases. The key issue was the disproportionate nature of the sanctions imposed – specifically the combination of complete confiscation of excess cash along with additional fines. The Court determined that this dual punishment imposed an excessive burden on the applicants.The main provisions of the decision include:

The Court reaffirmed its previous position established in the Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine case regarding the disproportionate nature of combined sanctions in customs cases
While acknowledging that applicants must bear responsibility for failing to declare cash, the Court found that complete confiscation plus fines was excessive
The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation to the applicants equal to the confiscated amounts plus costs and expenses in some cases
The compensation amounts varied significantly between cases, from 2,060 euros to 90,323 euros, depending on the confiscated sums

The most significant aspects for practical application are:

The establishment of clear precedent regarding proportionality of customs sanctions
Recognition that while states can impose penalties for customs violations, such penalties must not be excessive
Confirmation that combined use of confiscation and fines may constitute a violation of property rights
The Court’s position that finding a violation does not absolve applicants of responsibility for their customs violations

CASE OF TOBIJAŃSKI v. POLAND

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings in Poland, where the applicant was unable to attend his appeal hearing due to hospitalization. The Court found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (right to a fair trial).The decision focuses on three main aspects:

The Court’s assessment of the six-month time limit for filing the application, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision of March 29, 2017, was the final decision for admissibility purposes
The evaluation of the applicant’s right to personal attendance at the appeal hearing, particularly given his hospitalization and lack of legal representation
The Court of Appeal’s failure to properly assess the validity of the applicant’s medical justification for absence

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court found that the Polish Court of Appeal failed to properly consider whether the applicant had shown good cause for his absence, merely noting the formal requirement of a court-appointed doctor’s certificate
The ECHR emphasized that national courts must analyze the merits of justification provided by defendants for their absence, not just formal requirements
While the Court found a violation, it determined that this finding constituted sufficient just satisfaction and dismissed claims for pecuniary damages and costs

CASE OF MELIKHOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Melikhov and Others v. Ukraine, which consolidated six separate applications concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective remedies for this issue.The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in all cases. The proceedings in question lasted from approximately 3 years to 15 years, which the Court deemed excessive and incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.The Court assessed the cases based on established criteria including the complexity of cases, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Following its previous case-law, particularly the Nechay v. Ukraine case, the Court found no justification for such lengthy proceedings.

Key provisions:

The Court joined six separate applications due to their similar subject matter
The Court found violations of both Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 in all cases
The respondent State (Ukraine) was ordered to pay compensation ranging from 1,200 to 6,000 euros to the applicants
The compensation must be paid within three months and converted to local currency at the applicable rate
Interest will be payable on late payments at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points

CASE OF TEPLYAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The Court examined 16 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning poor detention conditions and lack of effective remedies. The specific violations included overcrowding, poor sanitation, inadequate food and water quality, insufficient access to showers, and other substandard conditions in various Ukrainian detention facilities. The Court awarded compensation ranging from 3,100 to 9,800 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage, plus additional amounts for costs and expenses in some cases.

Key provisions:

The Court reaffirmed that serious lack of space in prison cells is a major factor in determining whether detention conditions are ‘degrading’ under Article 3
The Court applied its established standards regarding proof and assessment of evidence in detention conditions cases
The judgment confirms previous findings in cases like Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine regarding similar violations
Some applications also included successful claims regarding excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings

Most important aspects:

The systematic nature of poor detention conditions across multiple facilities in Ukraine
The continuing absence of effective domestic remedies for such violations
The Court’s detailed assessment of specific space requirements and other material conditions of detention
The establishment of clear compensation amounts for various types of violations

CASE OF POLITUN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Politun and Others v. Ukraine, which consolidated 14 applications concerning inadequate conditions of detention in Ukrainian penitentiary facilities. The Court found violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.The decision addresses complaints from multiple applicants who were detained in various Ukrainian detention facilities between 2006 and 2024. While the personal space allocated to detainees (more than 4 sq. m) met minimum standards, the Court found numerous other deficiencies in detention conditions, including poor air quality, inadequate temperature control, insufficient natural light, lack of proper hygiene facilities, and poor food quality.The Court’s main findings include:

Even when personal space requirements are met, other aspects of physical detention conditions remain crucial for assessment under Article 3
The Ukrainian government failed to provide adequate evidence to refute the applicants’ complaints about poor detention conditions
The combined effect of poor conditions and prolonged confinement (up to 23 hours per day) constituted a violation of Article 3
Applicants lacked an effective remedy for their complaints about detention conditions

The Court awarded compensation ranging from 1,100 to 7,500 euros to individual applicants, depending on the duration and severity of their detention conditions. The judgment follows the precedents set in previous cases against Ukraine (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) regarding detention conditions.

CASE OF LEGACHOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

This decision concerns multiple applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The Court joined eight applications due to their similar subject matter, finding violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.The Court examined complaints about poor detention conditions in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, including overcrowding (2.4-5.8 m² per inmate), unsanitary conditions, lack of fresh air, poor quality of water and food, insufficient physical exercise, and other deficiencies. The periods of detention ranged from approximately 1.5 to 6 years.The key provisions of the decision include:

Confirmation that serious lack of space in prison cells can alone constitute a violation of Article 3, or in combination with other shortcomings
Reference to previous cases (Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found
Establishment of the Government’s obligation to provide primary evidence regarding cell conditions
Award of compensation ranging from 3,800 to 9,800 euros per applicant for damages

The most significant aspects for application include:

The Court’s emphasis on minimum space requirements per prisoner
Detailed list of factors considered in assessing detention conditions (air quality, food, water, hygiene facilities, etc.)
Recognition of the systematic nature of the problem in Ukrainian detention facilities
Clear standards for evidence that authorities must provide to justify detention conditions

CASE OF SHCHEGOLKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Shchegolkov and Others v. Ukraine, concerning four applications against Ukraine regarding excessive length of pre-trial detention. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in all cases, determining that the duration of pre-trial detention was unreasonably long. The decision combines four separate applications with similar complaints about pre-trial detention periods ranging from approximately 1.5 to 3.5 years. The Court identified several specific defects in the Ukrainian authorities’ approach, including fragility and repetitiveness of the courts’ reasoning, failure to examine alternative measures, and failure to conduct proceedings diligently. The key provisions of the judgment include:

Recognition of violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in all four cases
Additional violations of Articles 6(1) and 13 regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies in some cases
Award of compensation ranging from 1,100 to 2,800 euros for damages to different applicants
Requirement for Ukraine to pay costs and expenses of 250 euros in three of the four cases

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s emphasis on the need for proper justification of continued detention, the requirement for courts to consider alternative measures, and the establishment of specific compensation amounts for such violations. The Court referenced its previous decisions in Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine as precedents, confirming its established position on similar issues.

CASE OF BEREZOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Berezovskyy v. Ukraine concerning the ineffective investigation of a life-threatening traffic accident that occurred in 2013. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 2 § 1 of the Convention by failing to conduct an effective investigation into the incident where the applicant sustained severe injuries.The Court based its decision on several key parameters for assessing the effectiveness of investigation under Article 2: adequacy of investigative measures, promptness, involvement of the victim’s family, and independence of the investigation. The Court emphasized that while the obligation to investigate is not about achieving specific results, it should be capable of establishing facts and identifying those responsible.The judgment highlighted multiple investigative shortcomings:

The applicant’s rights as a victim were not properly safeguarded
The investigation was criticized by national authorities for lack of efficiency
There was no genuine attempt to conduct a thorough investigation
The case was repeatedly remitted for additional investigation due to insufficient measures
Multiple terminations of proceedings without proper notification to the applicant

The Court awarded the applicant 6,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses, to be paid by Ukraine within three months from the date of the judgment.

CASE OF CSEBÁN AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment concerning four joined applications against Hungary regarding the excessive length of criminal proceedings. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) in all cases. The proceedings lasted between 6 and 10 years, which the Court deemed excessive.The decision follows a standard structure addressing:

Joinder of applications due to similar subject matter
Assessment of Article 6 § 1 violations regarding reasonable time requirement
Evaluation of other violations under well-established case-law
Application of Article 41 concerning just satisfaction (compensation)

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court’s confirmation that the length of proceedings must be assessed based on case complexity, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for applicants
Reference to the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary as precedent
Award of compensation ranging from 1,600 to 3,400 euros per applicant
Additional finding of Article 13 violations (lack of effective remedy) for three applicants
Requirement for Hungary to pay compensation within three months with interest applicable in case of default

CASE OF BAGATYY v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Bagatyy v. Ukraine concerning the unlawful detention of the applicant. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention during the period from August 2023 to June 2024.The decision is structured around three main components: the procedural aspects, the assessment of the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The Court referred to its established case-law, particularly the Buzadji v. Moldova and Korban v. Ukraine cases, to support its findings.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court emphasized that the persistence of reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient to justify continued detention after a certain period
National authorities must provide relevant and sufficient reasons for detention from the very first decision ordering detention on remand
Courts are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring the person’s appearance at trial
The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros in non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses

CASE OF IVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies. The Court examined nine applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning poor detention conditions in various Ukrainian detention facilities between 2020 and 2024. The violations included overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor hygiene facilities, lack of privacy, insufficient access to water and showers, poor quality of food, and other substandard conditions.The Court’s main findings include:

All applicants were kept in detention in conditions that fell below acceptable standards, with personal space ranging from 2.5 to 3.8 square meters per inmate
The Ukrainian legal system lacked effective remedies for complaints about detention conditions
In some cases, additional violations were found regarding excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings

The Court awarded compensation ranging from 1,500 to 9,800 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage, plus additional amounts for costs and expenses in some cases. The judgment follows the Court’s established case-law, particularly referencing the precedents set in Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine regarding detention conditions.