Good day! I am happy to analyze for you the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of “Kireyev and Liman v. Ukraine”.<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the decision:**
\n The ECtHR found a violation by Ukraine of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) in the cases of applicants Kireyev and Liman. The violation consisted of denying the applicants access to higher courts through an excessively formalistic application of procedural rules by national courts.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and main provisions:**
\n The decision consists of a descriptive part, which sets out the facts of the case and the applicants’ complaints, and an analytical part, in which the Court considers the arguments of the parties and draws conclusions.
\n * The Court joined two applications into one proceeding due to their similarity.
\n * It confirmed that the right of access to a court is not absolute, but restrictions must not undermine the very essence of this right.
\n * The Court referred to previous practice in cases against Ukraine, where it had already established violations of Article 6 of the Convention in similar circumstances.
\n * It found that in the cases of Kireyev and Liman, the restrictions on access to higher courts were excessive and violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial.
\n * The Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant Liman, and rejected the claims of the applicant Kireyev due to the absence of claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
3. **Key provisions for use:**
\n The most important is the ECtHR’s confirmation that an excessively formalistic application of procedural rules, which prevents access to court, is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. This decision can be used as a precedent in similar cases where national courts refuse to consider complaints for formal reasons, without considering the merits of the case and the importance of ensuring the right to a fair trial. The decision is particularly important in the context of judicial practice, as it concerns access to justice, which is a fundamental right.<\/p>\n