Okay, here’s a breakdown of the Olishchuk and Others v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights, tailored for journalistic use:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court ruled that the length of criminal proceedings against the applicants was excessive and unreasonable. Furthermore, the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the length of these proceedings within Ukraine. The Court has joined three applications due to the similarity of the subject matter. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged under Article 34 of the Convention and that the Ukrainian Government was notified.
* **Facts:** This section briefly refers to the appended table, which contains the list of applicants and relevant details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This is the core of the judgment. The Court referenced its established case-law, particularly the Nechay v. Ukraine case, which dealt with similar issues. It found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that no effective remedy was available to the applicants.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amount of compensation to be awarded to each applicant, referencing its previous case-law (Bevz v. Ukraine) as a guide.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision:
* The applications are joined.
* The applications are admissible.
* There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* Ukraine is ordered to pay the specified amounts in damages, plus interest in case of late payment.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, details of the proceedings, and the amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1 (Reasonable Time):** The key takeaway is the finding that Ukraine failed to ensure that the criminal proceedings against the applicants were conducted within a reasonable time. This reinforces the importance of timely justice.
* **Violation of Article 13 (Effective Remedy):** The judgment highlights the absence of an effective domestic remedy for the applicants to challenge the excessive length of proceedings. This underscores the need for accessible and effective mechanisms for individuals to seek redress for violations of their rights.
* **Compensation:** The specific amounts awarded to each applicant (detailed in the appendix) provide a tangible measure of the damages suffered due to the violations.
* **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The judgment references previous cases (Nechay v. Ukraine, Bevz v. Ukraine), indicating that the Court is applying established principles and standards in its assessment.
* **Unanimous Decision:** The decision was unanimous, which strengthens the authority and persuasiveness of the judgment.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues with the length of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies within the country. This information could be particularly relevant for Ukrainians involved in legal proceedings or those working on judicial reform.
