CASE OF BOGAY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(as the case concerns Ukraine)
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the unlawful detention of 12 Ukrainian protesters for 2-3 hours at a police station following their participation in a demonstration against the use of animals in circus acts. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty) due to unrecorded detention and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) regarding the protesters’ arrest and detention. However, the Court found no violation regarding police inspection of protesters’ belongings for dangerous items. The Court awarded each applicant €1,200 in non-pecuniary damages.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines three main legal issues:
1) Whether the detention at the police station was lawful under Article 5
2) Whether police inspection of belongings violated freedom of assembly rights
3) Whether the arrest and detention violated freedom of assembly rights
– Key findings:
– Unrecorded detention for 2-3 hours violated Article 5
– Police inspection for dangerous items was justified and proportionate
– Arrest and detention were disproportionate measures
– No need to examine Article 13 complaint separately
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that even short-term (2-3 hours) unrecorded detention at a police station constitutes deprivation of liberty requiring proper documentation
– Police may inspect protesters’ belongings for dangerous items if there are specific grounds for suspicion, but must consider less restrictive alternatives before resorting to arrest and detention
– The burden lies with authorities to prove violent intentions of demonstration organizers
– Presence of potentially dangerous items alone does not justify ending a peaceful protest if there is no evidence of intent to use them violently
– Police must consider proportionate measures and less restrictive alternatives before dispersing demonstrations
The decision provides important guidance on balancing security measures with freedom of assembly rights in the context of peaceful protests.
CASE OF HAYK GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s the detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Hayk Grigoryan v. Armenia case:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns the assault on a journalist and seizure of his camera by police officers while he was filming a demonstration that turned violent in Armenia. The Court found that the police officers’ actions effectively disrupted and impeded the applicant’s journalistic work, amounting to an interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The Court concluded that the interference was not shown to be lawful or pursuing a legitimate aim, and therefore could not be considered “necessary in a democratic society.”
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case examines whether police actions against a journalist during a protest violated Article 10 of the Convention
– The Court analyzed whether the interference with journalist’s rights was justified
– The decision establishes that measures preventing journalists from doing their work may raise issues under Article 10
– The Court emphasized that even without a visible press card, filming activities should be protected as exercise of right to receive and impart information
– The decision awards compensation for non-pecuniary damage but rejects claims for pecuniary damage and legal costs
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirms that measures by public authorities preventing journalists from doing their work raise Article 10 issues
– Even without visible press credentials, filming of public events is likely protected as information-gathering activity
– Police must have legitimate justification for interfering with journalists’ work during protests
– The state must ensure effective investigation of incidents involving interference with journalistic activities
– The length and effectiveness of investigation can affect whether domestic remedies are considered exhausted
– When assessing admissibility, the Court can consider developments after application was filed if directly related to the case
The decision reinforces protection of journalists’ rights during public events and sets standards for state response to incidents involving interference with press activities. It’s particularly relevant for cases involving police actions against media representatives during protests and demonstrations.
CASE OF KULÁK v. SLOVAKIA
Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Kulák v. Slovakia:
1. Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns a search of a lawyer’s office and seizure of his work computer conducted without a proper search warrant, based only on prosecutor’s telephone consent. The Court found that while there was a general legal basis for such measures in Slovak law, the applicant wasn’t offered sufficient guarantees for his right to respect of private life and home before or after the search operation. The Court concluded there was a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as the interference wasn’t “in accordance with law” due to lack of proper procedural safeguards.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case examines whether the search and seizure were conducted with adequate legal safeguards
– The Court analyzed several key aspects:
* Lack of prior judicial warrant and immediate ex post factum judicial review
* Insufficient role of Bar Association representative during search
* Absence of procedures to protect privileged information
* Extended retention of the computer (15 months)
– The Court awarded €10,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,125 in costs
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirms that searches of lawyers’ premises require “especially strict scrutiny” and specific procedural safeguards
– The presence of Bar Association representative must be meaningful, not purely formal
– When seizing electronic devices from lawyers, there must be procedures to protect privileged information
– The absence of prior judicial warrant must be compensated by effective ex post factum judicial review
– Extended retention of lawyers’ work equipment requires special justification
– The Court emphasizes that it’s the State’s responsibility to ensure proper framework for searches, regardless of whether the lawyer agrees to certain procedures
The decision is particularly significant as it sets clear standards for procedural safeguards required when conducting searches in lawyers’ offices and handling electronic devices containing privileged information. It demonstrates that formal compliance with basic procedures is not sufficient – the safeguards must be practical and effective.
CASE OF AGUREYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined six joint applications against Ukraine concerning inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding poor detention conditions and absence of effective domestic remedies. The applicants were awarded compensation ranging from 5,000 to 9,800 euros.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined six separate applications due to similar subject matter.
2. The main violations concerned:
– Inadequate conditions of detention (overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of fresh air, insufficient lighting)
– Absence of effective remedies in domestic law
– In one case (No. 12818/24), additional violations of Article 5 regarding excessive pre-trial detention
3. The Court referenced its previous decisions in Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine as precedents.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that serious lack of space in prison cells is a crucial factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading” under Article 3.
2. Specific standards of proof were outlined: governments must provide primary evidence including cell floor plans and actual number of inmates.
3. The Court established specific compensation amounts for each applicant based on the duration and severity of violations.
4. The decision reinforces the requirement for Ukraine to provide adequate detention conditions and effective remedies for complaints about such conditions.
5. The judgment sets clear standards for evidence that authorities must provide to justify detention conditions, including documentation of air quality, food, water quality, pest control, and other facilities.
CASE OF BEREZHNA v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case of Berezhna v. Ukraine concerning unlawful detention of the applicant. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the unacknowledged deprivation of liberty and delay in drawing up an arrest report. The case also involved issues of excessive length of pre-trial detention and failure to examine alternative measures of restraint.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court established that the detention of Olena Petrivna Berezhna was unlawful during the period of March 14-16, 2022.
2. The decision references previous case law, particularly Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine, Grubnyk v. Ukraine, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, regarding unacknowledged deprivation of liberty.
3. The Court found additional violations related to:
– Excessive length of pre-trial detention (from March 14, 2022 onwards)
– Failure to consider alternative measures of restraint
– Lack of due diligence in conducting proceedings during detention
4. The Court awarded EUR 2,500 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant
Key important provisions:
1. The judgment reinforces that Article 5 is among the fundamental rights protecting physical security of individuals, with paramount importance in preventing arbitrary deprivations of liberty.
2. The Court emphasizes that compliance with national law alone is insufficient – any deprivation of liberty must protect individuals from arbitrariness.
3. The decision establishes that both the initial detention and subsequent pre-trial detention procedures violated the Convention, highlighting the importance of proper documentation of arrest and consideration of alternative measures.
4. The judgment requires Ukraine to pay compensation within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment.
CASE OF GRYGORENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined four joined cases against Ukraine concerning unreasonably long pre-trial detention periods. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in all cases, where detention periods ranged from 1.5 to over 5.5 years. The Court awarded compensation to the applicants ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 euros plus costs and expenses.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined four separate applications due to similar subject matter
2. The primary complaint was violation of Article 5 § 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention
3. The Court based its decision on established case law, particularly Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine
4. The Court found specific defects in each case, including:
– Failure to examine alternative restraint measures
– Use of assumptions without evidence regarding risks
– Fragility and repetitiveness of court reasoning
– Lack of due diligence by authorities
Key important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that Ukraine systematically violates the reasonable time requirement for pre-trial detention
2. The decision identifies specific procedural violations:
– Failure to properly assess personal situations of detainees
– Lack of proper justification for extended detention
– Insufficient examination of alternative measures
3. The Court established specific compensation amounts based on the length and circumstances of each detention
4. The decision requires Ukraine to pay compensation within three months, with interest applicable after that period
The decision reinforces the Court’s position on the necessity to justify pre-trial detention with specific and sufficient reasons, rather than abstract risks or standard formulations.
CASE OF GÜL AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Gül and Others v. Türkiye:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns multiple applications against Türkiye regarding criminal proceedings initiated against individuals for allegedly disseminating propaganda in favor of a terrorist organization (PKK/KCK). The applicants were convicted and received suspended sentences with a five-year supervision period. The Court found that these convictions violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression).
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court joined nine separate applications due to their similar subject matter.
2. The Court rejected the Government’s objections regarding time limits and admissibility.
3. The Court found that domestic courts failed to:
– Properly contextualize the statements and acts
– Provide adequate reasoning about whether the acts could incite violence
– Consider the potential impact and circumstances of each case
4. The Court awarded compensation (2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs per application)
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that Article 10 protects not only favorable or inoffensive information but also ideas that offend, shock, or disturb.
2. The decision establishes that domestic courts must provide detailed analysis of whether expressions constitute actual incitement to violence or hate speech, rather than making broad assumptions.
3. The Court found that Article 231 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (regarding suspension of pronouncement of judgments) does not provide adequate protection against arbitrary infringement of Convention rights.
4. The judgment emphasizes the need for contextual analysis of expressions related to sensitive political issues, even when they involve organizations designated as terrorist groups.
CASE OF HEINZ AND HAIDERER v. AUSTRIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Heinz and Haiderer v. Austria:
Essence of the Decision:
The case concerns complaints by two Austrian citizens regarding excessive length of civil proceedings in Austria. The Court found that in both cases, the duration of proceedings (9 years and 3 months for Heinz, and over 10 years and 6 months for Haiderer) violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, specifically the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court ordered Austria to pay compensation to both applicants.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The Court joined two separate applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court applied established criteria for assessing reasonable time:
– Complexity of the case
– Conduct of applicants
– Conduct of authorities
– Stakes for applicants
3. The Court referenced previous similar cases (Rambauske v. Austria and Holzinger v. Austria) as precedents
4. The decision includes specific compensation amounts:
– EUR 2,500 for Heinz
– EUR 11,200 for Haiderer
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that even if an applicant could have used domestic remedies to accelerate proceedings (as in case no. 31668/23), this doesn’t justify the excessive overall length
2. The compensation must be paid within three months with interest at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points if payment is delayed
3. The Court’s assessment was based on established case law regarding reasonable time requirements in civil proceedings
4. The decision reinforces that multiple levels of jurisdiction (3-4 levels) don’t justify proceedings lasting nearly a decade or more
CASE OF ILIE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Here’s the analysis of the ECHR decision in Ilie and Others v. Romania (Revision):
Essence of the Decision:
The Court revised its judgment of 9 February 2023 regarding one of the applicants, Mr. Nicolae-Marian Vasile, who had died before the original judgment was delivered. The revision was requested by the Romanian Government after discovering the applicant’s death. The Court decided to strike out the application of the deceased applicant from its list of cases, as no legal heirs properly pursued the case.
Structure and Main Provisions:
1. The revision was based on Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, which allows revision when a decisive fact unknown at the time of judgment is discovered
2. The Court established three key elements for revision:
– The death was a fact unknown to the Court when delivering the judgment
– It was a fact of “decisive influence”
– The Government could not reasonably have known about it earlier
3. The Court applied Article 37 § 1 of the Convention regarding striking out applications
Key Important Provisions:
1. The Court confirmed its practice of striking out applications when an applicant dies during proceedings and no heirs or close relatives properly express their wish to pursue the case
2. Despite the applicant’s mother expressing interest in pursuing the case, her failure to provide proper documentation of her status as legal heir (certificat de moștenitor) led to the application being struck out
3. The Court established a clear procedural requirement for heirs wishing to pursue cases – they must provide authentic documentation proving their status as legal heirs within the given timeframe
CASE OF MYRONCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined five joined applications against Ukraine concerning excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention in all cases, where proceedings lasted between 5 and 9 years, which was deemed unreasonable.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined five separate applications due to similar subject matter
2. The Court assessed the reasonableness of proceedings length based on:
– Case complexity
– Conduct of applicants and authorities
– What was at stake for applicants
3. The Court referenced previous cases (Karnaushenko v. Ukraine and Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine) as precedents
4. The Court found violations in all cases and awarded monetary compensation ranging from 500 to 4,200 euros
Key important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that Ukraine lacks effective remedies for complaints about lengthy civil proceedings
2. The decision establishes specific compensation amounts based on the duration of proceedings:
– Longest case (9+ years) – 4,200 euros
– Medium duration (7-8 years) – 1,200 euros
– Shorter duration (5+ years) – 500 euros
3. The Court ordered payments to be made within three months, with interest applicable after that period at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points
The decision reinforces the Court’s position on the systematic problem of lengthy civil proceedings in Ukraine and establishes clear compensation guidelines for similar violations.
CASE OF OBARANCHUK v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns the violation of legal certainty and property rights in Ukraine when a final court judgment from 2012 granting land ownership rights to the applicant was later quashed following an appeal by a third party who acquired the land after the judgment. The European Court of Human Rights found that Ukrainian authorities violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by allowing the reopening of proceedings without substantial justification and by depriving the applicant of her established property rights. The Court particularly emphasized that the situation arose due to the authorities’ omissions after the 2012 judgment.
Structure and main provisions:
1. Background of the case:
– Initial land privatization process started by applicant’s father
– 2012 judgment declaring applicant as rightful owner
– Subsequent allocation of the same land to third parties
– Appeal proceedings and quashing of the 2012 judgment
2. Key legal findings:
– Violation of legal certainty principle
– Unjustified reopening of final judgment
– Failure of domestic courts to address crucial arguments
– Violation of property rights without compensation
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court established that procedural rules must ensure proper administration of justice and compliance with legal certainty, applying both to litigants and national courts.
2. While third parties affected by a judgment may appeal against it, this right cannot be based on situations created by authorities’ own omissions after the final judgment.
3. The Court emphasized that quashing a final judgment without acceptable justification and compensation, especially when the situation was created by authorities’ actions, places an excessive burden on the original rights holder.
4. The decision reinforces the principle that authorities cannot create situations contradicting final court decisions and then use these situations to justify reopening proceedings.
CASE OF POPOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined seven joined applications against Ukraine concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to unreasonably long criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensations ranging from 800 to 6,000 euros to the applicants.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined seven separate applications due to similar subject matter.
2. The Court assessed the reasonableness of proceedings’ length based on established criteria:
– Complexity of the case
– Conduct of applicants and authorities
– What was at stake for applicants
3. The Court referenced its previous decision in Nechay v. Ukraine case as a leading precedent.
4. The decision established violations in all cases, with proceedings lasting from approximately 7 years to more than 15 years.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court confirmed that Ukraine systematically violates reasonable time requirements in criminal proceedings, with some cases lasting over 15 years.
2. The compensation amounts were determined based on the length of proceedings and number of jurisdiction levels involved.
3. Three cases were still pending at the time of the judgment, indicating ongoing violations.
4. The Court established a direct correlation between the duration of proceedings and compensation amounts, with longer delays resulting in higher compensation.
5. The decision requires Ukraine to pay compensations within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment.
CASE OF SKOROKHOD AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on 11 combined applications against Ukraine concerning inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding poor detention conditions in various Ukrainian detention facilities. The applicants were awarded compensation ranging from 1,700 to 9,500 euros for damages.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court joined 11 separate applications due to similar subject matter.
2. The main violations concerned:
– Overcrowding (less than 4 square meters per inmate)
– Poor sanitary conditions (mold, dirt, insects)
– Lack of basic amenities (fresh air, proper bedding, toiletries)
– Insufficient access to water and proper food
– Lack of effective remedies in domestic law
3. The Court referenced its previous decisions in Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine as precedents.
4. Additional violations were found regarding excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings in some cases.
Key important provisions:
1. The Court reaffirmed that serious lack of space in prison cells is a key factor in determining whether detention conditions are “degrading” under Article 3.
2. The government must provide primary evidence (cell floor plans, actual number of inmates) to counter claims of poor conditions.
3. The Court established specific compensation amounts based on the duration and severity of poor conditions.
4. The decision reinforces the requirement for Ukraine to provide effective remedies for complaints about detention conditions.
5. The judgment highlights systematic problems in Ukrainian detention facilities, including overcrowding and poor material conditions.
CASE OF SPEKTOR v. UKRAINE
Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of Ukrainian citizen Spektor who complained about denial of access to a higher court. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by rejecting the applicant’s appeal on overly formalistic grounds. The Court awarded EUR 1,500 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The case concerns the right of access to courts, specifically the appeal process
2. The Court reaffirmed that while Article 6 doesn’t require states to establish appeal courts, if such courts exist, they must comply with Article 6 guarantees
3. The Court referenced its previous decisions (Kreuz v. Poland and Mushta v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found
4. The specific violation occurred when the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as being out of time, despite the fact that the full text of the contested decision was only published and delivered to the applicant later
Key important provisions:
1. The Court emphasized that the right of access to court, while not absolute, cannot be restricted to the extent that its very essence is impaired
2. The Court established that procedural limitations must be reasonable and proportionate
3. The principle that errors made by state authorities must be borne by the State and not remedied at the expense of individuals was reinforced
4. The Court confirmed that overly formalistic application of procedural rules regarding time limits for appeals can constitute a violation of the right of access to court
The decision strengthens the protection of procedural rights in Ukraine and sets clear standards for courts regarding the handling of appeals and procedural time limits.
