Here’s a breakdown of the Lyubovetskyy v. Ukraine decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the unlawful detention of Mr. Lyubovetskyy. The core issue was that domestic courts initially applied less favorable criminal law, leading to his detention beyond the period that would have been applicable under the correct, more lenient law. Although he was eventually released, the delay in applying the correct law resulted in over five years of unjust detention. The Court also found that Mr. Lyubovetskyy did not have an enforceable right to compensation under Ukrainian law for this unlawful detention.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case centered on the applicant’s claim that his detention was unlawful due to the application of less favorable law and the subsequent denial of compensation for that detention.
* **Background:** Mr. Lyubovetskyy was initially convicted in 2006, but the conviction was later quashed and remitted for re-examination. He was ultimately sentenced under the Criminal Code of 2001, which had longer statutory limitation periods than the Criminal Code of 1960, which was in force when the offenses were committed.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** While domestic courts eventually released Mr. Lyubovetskyy, recognizing the error in applying the law, his claim for compensation for the period of unlawful detention was ultimately rejected.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible, rejecting the Government’s argument that it was submitted too late.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court found that Mr. Lyubovetskyy’s detention was unforeseeable and arbitrary because the domestic court did not apply the more favorable law at the outset.
* **Article 5 § 5 Violation:** The Court held that Ukraine failed to secure Mr. Lyubovetskyy’s right to compensation for the unlawful detention, as there was no effective remedy under domestic law.
* **Article 41:** No compensation was awarded as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Application of More Favorable Law:** The decision reinforces the principle that individuals should benefit from the more lenient law applicable between the time of the offense and the final sentence.
* **Lawfulness of Detention:** The ECtHR emphasized that detention must be lawful, foreseeable, and non-arbitrary, aligning with both national and international legal standards.
* **Right to Compensation:** The judgment highlights the obligation of states to provide an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention, particularly when a violation of Article 5 of the Convention is established.
* **Legal Certainty:** The decision underscores the importance of legal certainty in deprivation of liberty cases, ensuring that the conditions for detention are clearly defined and foreseeable.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and highlights the importance of applying the correct, most favorable law in criminal proceedings and ensuring that individuals have access to compensation for unlawful detention.
