{"id":15548,"date":"2026-03-06T09:27:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-06T07:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/03\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-06-03-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-03-06T09:27:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-06T07:27:00","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-06-03-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/03\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-06-03-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 06\/03\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KAGANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE (No. 2)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Kaganovskyy v. Ukraine (No. 2).<\/p>\n

**1. Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 4, and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the unlawful detention of Mr. Volodymyr Kaganovskyy, a person with a mental disorder, in a State-run social care institution. The Court determined that his deprivation of liberty was not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness, as there was no formal decision or judicial authorization for the restrictions imposed on his freedom of movement. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no effective legal procedure for Mr. Kaganovskyy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in court and to obtain compensation for it. The Court emphasized that the lack of judicial oversight and the reliance on the instructions of his legal guardian, without any medical justification, rendered his detention unlawful.<\/p>\n

**2. Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the applicant’s alleged unlawful detention and the lack of effective remedies. It then presents the facts, including Mr. Kaganovskyy’s medical history, his placement in the Kyiv Psychoneurological Residential Institution (KPRI), and the restrictions imposed on his freedom of movement. The judgment details the relevant domestic legal framework, including the Psychiatric Assistance Act, rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and relevant regulations. It also references reports from the Ukrainian Ombudsperson, non-governmental organizations, and international bodies like the CPT and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.<\/p>\n

The Court addresses the Government’s objection regarding continued examination after the applicant’s death, ultimately deciding to continue the case due to its broader implications for vulnerable individuals in similar institutions. The judgment then assesses the alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 4, and 5 of the Convention, examining the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints. It finds violations of all three provisions, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for the detention, the absence of judicial review, and the lack of an effective remedy for compensation. Finally, the Court addresses other alleged violations under Articles 8, 9, and 13 of the Convention, finding that no separate issue arises under these articles. The judgment concludes with a statement regarding the application of Article 41 of the Convention, noting that the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

This decision builds upon a previous judgment, Kaganovskyy v. Ukraine (no. 2809\/18), which addressed a specific period of confinement in an enhanced supervision unit. This second judgment focuses on the periods immediately before and after that confinement, addressing the broader issue of the applicant’s detention within the KPRI.<\/p>\n

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty:** The decision underscores that the detention of a person with a mental disorder in a social care institution can constitute a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 \u00a7 1, even if the initial placement was voluntary.
\n* **Safeguards Against Arbitrariness:** The judgment emphasizes the need for sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness in such cases, including a formal decision, judicial authorization, and regular medical assessments.
\n* **Right to Judicial Review:** The decision highlights the importance of an effective legal procedure for individuals to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in court, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4.
\n* **Right to Compensation:** The Court reaffirms that Article 5 \u00a7 5 requires an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention, which was not ensured in the Ukrainian legal system in this case.
\n* **Importance of International Standards:** The decision references international standards and reports from bodies like the CPT and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasizing the need for Ukraine to align its legal framework with these standards.<\/p>\n

**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, highlighting systemic issues in the treatment of persons with mental disorders in social care institutions. It calls for reforms to ensure that such individuals are not arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and have access to effective legal remedies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KRYUK v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Kryuk v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined complaints by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr. Pavlo Kryuk and Mr. Oleksandr Kryuk, regarding their confinement in a glass dock during court hearings and their placement under house arrest. The Court found no violation of Article 3 concerning the glass dock confinement, deeming it not severe enough to constitute degrading treatment. However, the Court found violations of Article 5 \u00a7 3 (right to liberty and security) due to the domestic courts’ failure to provide sufficient justification for the applicants’ house arrest, Article 5 \u00a7 5 (right to compensation) because Ukrainian law did not provide an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case and the articles of the Convention involved.
\n * **Facts:** Details the applicants’ arrest, detention, and the conditions of their confinement, including the dimensions and features of the glass dock.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites the Ukrainian State Judicial Administration’s requirements for glass docks.
\n * **The Law:**
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
\n * **Article 3 (Degrading Treatment):** The Court found the confinement in the glass dock did not reach the minimum level of severity to be considered degrading treatment.
\n * **Article 5 (Right to Liberty and Security):**
\n * **Article 5 \u00a7 3:** The Court found a violation because the domestic courts did not provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for imposing and extending the applicants’ house arrest.
\n * **Article 5 \u00a7 4:** The Court held that no separate issue arises under Article 5 \u00a7 4.
\n * **Article 5 \u00a7 5:** The Court found a violation because Ukrainian law did not provide an enforceable right to compensation for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3.
\n * **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** Awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**<\/p>\n

* **Glass Dock Confinement (Article 3):** The Court distinguished between confinement in a glass dock and a metal cage, finding that the former does not automatically constitute degrading treatment unless the overall circumstances reach a certain level of severity.
\n * **Justification for House Arrest (Article 5 \u00a7 3):** The Court emphasized that domestic courts must provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for imposing and extending house arrest, especially after a prolonged period of detention. Simply repeating standard formulas is not enough.
\n * **Right to Compensation (Article 5 \u00a7 5):** The Court reiterated that individuals have a right to compensation if their detention violates Article 5, and this right must be enforceable under domestic law.<\/p>\n

**** This decision highlights the importance of providing concrete and individualized justifications for pre-trial detention and house arrest, especially in Ukraine where pre-trial restrictions are often applied. It also underscores the need for an effective legal framework that ensures victims of unlawful detention can obtain compensation.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ZINCHENKO AND TAMTURA v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Zinchenko and Tamtura v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined two primary complaints in this case. First, the applicants alleged that their confinement in a glass dock during court hearings constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the Convention. The Court found that the use of a glass dock, unlike a metal cage, did not inherently amount to degrading treatment and that the overall circumstances of their confinement did not reach the minimum level of severity required to constitute a violation of Article 3. Second, one of the applicants, Mr. Tamtura, complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention, arguing it violated Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. The Court agreed, finding that the domestic courts had failed to provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons justifying the extension and overall duration of his detention, which lasted nearly five years.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case and the relevant articles of the Convention.
\n * **Facts:** Details the background, including the applicants’ arrest and detention related to the Maidan events, the conditions of their confinement in the courtroom, and the domestic court’s response to their complaints.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Refers to the State Judicial Administration’s requirements for glass docks.
\n * **The Law:**
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine both applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Articles 3 and 13:** The Court analyzed the complaint regarding the glass dock confinement, finding it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. It emphasized that while Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, the circumstances did not meet the required severity threshold. The Court also dismissed the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as manifestly ill-founded, noting that the trial court had addressed the applicants’ concerns.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3:** The Court declared the complaint regarding the length of Mr. Tamtura’s detention admissible. It found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3, stating that the domestic courts’ decisions extending his detention relied on standard formulas without addressing the specific facts of his case.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court considered just satisfaction but did not award any sum since the second applicant did not submit a claim for it.
\n * **Separate Opinions:** Includes a concurring opinion from Judge Gnatovskyy, elaborating on the reasoning behind the judgment, and a dissenting opinion from Judge Grigoryan, who disagreed with the finding of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Glass Docks vs. Metal Cages:** The decision reinforces the distinction between glass docks and metal cages in courtrooms. While metal cages are considered inherently degrading, glass docks are not, unless the overall circumstances of confinement cause distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.
\n * **Justification for Pre-Trial Detention:** The decision highlights the importance of domestic courts providing “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for extending pre-trial detention. Simply repeating standard grounds for detention without addressing the specific facts of the applicant’s case is not sufficient justification.
\n * **Assessment of Degrading Treatment:** The Court reiterated that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3, depending on all the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, particularly concerning the standards of pre-trial detention and courtroom security measures.<\/p>\n

I hope this detailed description is helpful.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ADAM v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Adam v. the Republic of Moldova decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The case concerns the ineffective investigation into violence against the applicant, a police officer, and the inadequacy of compensation awarded by Moldovan courts. The applicant was severely injured when a motorcyclist deliberately drove into him while he was on duty. While the perpetrator was convicted, the applicant argued that the compensation for his injuries (including permanent hearing and smell loss) was insufficient. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (right to life) under its procedural limb, concluding that the domestic proceedings failed to provide adequate redress for the injuries sustained.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Subject Matter:** The judgment outlines the applicant’s complaints regarding the ineffective investigation and inadequate compensation for injuries sustained due to violence.
\n * **Domestic Proceedings:** It details the initial investigation, court decisions, and appeals within the Moldovan legal system, including the amounts of compensation awarded at each stage.
\n * **The Court’s Assessment:** This section includes:
\n * *Preliminary Objections:* The Government’s arguments regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the applicant’s victim status are addressed and dismissed.
\n * *Merits:* The Court analyzes the effectiveness of the domestic proceedings in providing redress, focusing on the amount of compensation awarded in relation to the severity of the injuries. It references previous ECtHR cases to establish principles for adequate compensation.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The judgment addresses the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage and costs\/expenses incurred before the Court, ultimately awarding the applicant the full amount claimed for non-pecuniary damages and costs\/expenses.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Article 2 Violation (Procedural Limb):** The key finding is that Moldova failed to provide adequate redress for the serious injuries inflicted on the applicant.
\n * **Compensation:** The ECtHR emphasized that compensation awarded domestically must be reasonable and not disproportionately lower than what the Court typically awards in similar cases. The Court rejected the argument that the applicant’s status as a police officer justified lower compensation.
\n * **Victim Status:** The Court reaffirmed that an applicant retains victim status if domestic proceedings do not provide sufficient redress for the harm suffered.<\/p>\n

This decision highlights the importance of effective investigations and adequate compensation in cases of serious violence, reinforcing the state’s obligation to protect individuals from harm and provide appropriate remedies when such harm occurs.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF CHERTOK v. HUNGARY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Chertok v. Hungary decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Hungary in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the lack of sufficiently regular judicial review of Mr. Chertok’s extradition detention. Mr. Chertok, a Russian national, was arrested in Hungary based on an international arrest warrant from Russia and was held in extradition detention. While the Court found no violation regarding the lawfulness or length of his detention under Article 5 \u00a7 1, it determined that the periods between judicial reviews of his detention were too long, thus violating his right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed at reasonable intervals. The Court awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
\n 2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s arrest, the extradition proceedings, and his asylum application.
\n * It then details the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (lawfulness of detention) and Article 5 \u00a7 4 (right to review of detention) of the Convention.
\n * The Court assesses the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1, finding no violation regarding the domestic courts’ assessment of political motivation or the length of the detention.
\n * The Court then examines the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4, finding that there were excessively long periods without judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention.
\n * Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
\n * The decision highlights a change in Hungarian law, effective from 1 January 2022, which mandates judicial review of detention pending extradition every six months, especially when detention is extended due to an ongoing asylum claim.
\n 3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * The key takeaway is the emphasis on the requirement for *regular* judicial review of detention, especially in extradition cases. The Court stresses that individuals held in detention pending extradition must have the opportunity to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed at reasonable intervals.
\n * The decision underscores that even if the initial detention is lawful, and the overall length of proceedings is not deemed excessive, the *absence* of periodic judicial review can still constitute a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4.
\n * The judgment highlights the importance of domestic law providing mechanisms for such reviews, and it takes note of Hungary’s amendment to its law to address this issue, mandating reviews every six months in extradition cases, particularly when asylum claims are involved.<\/p>\n

I hope this analysis is helpful.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF EDILSUD 2014 S.R.L. SEMPLIFICATA AND FERRERI v. ITALY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Edilsud 2014 S.r.l. Semplificata and Ferreri v. Italy, concerning a complaint about the access and inspection of the applicant company’s business premises, which was also the home of its legal representative. The inspection was authorized to assess the company\u2019s tax compliance. The applicants alleged that the domestic authorities had excessively broad discretion and lacked sufficient procedural safeguards, violating Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. The Court found a violation of Article 8, concluding that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” because the domestic legislation did not require a reasoned justification for the authorization of the search. The Court awarded the applicants 7,600 euros jointly for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, followed by a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice. The Court then addresses the joinder of the applications and the alleged violation of Article 8, including admissibility and merits. The Court dismissed the government’s argument about the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, referring to its findings in a previous similar case. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding damages for non-pecuniary loss. There are no significant changes in the structure compared to previous versions.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the lack of a requirement for a reasoned justification for the authorization to search business premises that also serve as a private residence violates Article 8 of the Convention. This highlights the need for clear and proportionate legal standards governing such searches to protect individuals from arbitrary interference with their private lives. This decision reinforces the principle that even when tax compliance is the objective, the authorities must adhere to the rule of law and respect fundamental rights.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF GAZIN v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Gazin v. Ukraine decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention due to the excessive length and ineffectiveness of domestic criminal proceedings regarding alleged medical malpractice. The applicant, Mr. Gazin, complained about the unreasonably long trial concerning medical negligence that he claimed resulted in health complications following a urinary catheterisation. The ECtHR emphasized that the proceedings, initiated in 2013, were still pending at the first instance as of October 2025, without any decision on the doctor’s liability or Mr. Gazin’s civil claim. The Court concluded that such prolonged proceedings failed to provide an effective remedy for the applicant’s grievances, thus violating his right to a fair process in addressing medical negligence. The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Subject Matter:** The case concerned the ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings related to medical malpractice allegations.
\n * **Background Facts:** Mr. Gazin underwent a urinary catheterisation in 2012, after which he experienced health complications. He alleged these complications resulted from improperly performed catheterisation. Criminal proceedings were initiated in 2013 against the doctor involved, and Mr. Gazin filed a civil claim within those proceedings.
\n * **Scope of the Case:** The Court declined to consider new complaints raised by the applicant regarding uncertified medical equipment and lack of training, as they were introduced late in the proceedings.
\n * **Article 8 Violation:** The Court examined the case from the standpoint of the procedural limb of Article 8, focusing on whether the domestic proceedings were effective.
\n * **Admissibility:** The Government’s objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies was joined to the merits and later dismissed. The Court found the application admissible.
\n * **Merits:** The Court assessed the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings, noting their excessive length and lack of a final decision. It rejected the Government’s argument that the applicant could have claimed compensation for the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings, citing previous findings that such a remedy would not have been effective while criminal proceedings were pending.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The applicant sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as legal costs. The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage due to a lack of causal link but awarded 3,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage. The claim for legal costs was dismissed due to a lack of evidence. The request for general measures was deemed unnecessary.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Procedural Obligation in Medical Negligence Cases:** The decision reinforces the State’s obligation to provide effective proceedings for victims of medical negligence, ensuring the establishment of facts, accountability, and appropriate redress within a reasonable time.
\n * **Effectiveness of Remedies:** The Court reiterated that, in the context of Ukraine, parallel civil-law remedies are not considered effective while criminal proceedings in medical negligence cases are pending.
\n * **Reasonable Timeframe:** The decision underscores that even complex cases requiring expert assessment cannot justify excessively long proceedings, especially when the case remains pending at first instance for many years.
\n * **State’s Responsibility:** The ruling highlights the State’s responsibility to organize its judicial system to meet the Convention’s requirements, ensuring prompt responses in medical negligence cases to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.<\/p>\n

**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, emphasizing the need for efficient and timely handling of medical negligence cases to ensure the protection of individuals’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF TEGULUM S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Tegulum S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova judgment on just satisfaction:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

This judgment addresses the compensation due to Tegulum S.A. after the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) previously found that Moldova violated the company’s property rights by revoking its right to exploit a quarry. Following the initial judgment, domestic proceedings were reopened, and the company’s mining rights were restored. However, the ECtHR still needed to determine compensation for the period during which the company could not exercise its rights. The court awarded the company EUR 450,000 for pecuniary damage related to the loss of value of the mineral deposit and EUR 7,500 for costs and expenses incurred after the initial judgment. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant company\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Procedure:** Details the background of the case, referencing the initial judgment that found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
\n * **Facts After the Court’s Principal Judgment:** Describes the steps taken in Moldova to rectify the violation, including the reopening of domestic proceedings and the reinstatement of the company’s mining rights. It also outlines difficulties the company faced in resuming its operations.
\n * **The Law:** Cites Article 41 of the Convention, which provides the basis for just satisfaction when a violation has been found.
\n * **Pecuniary Damage:** Presents the arguments of both the applicant company and the Moldovan government regarding the amount of compensation due. The company sought compensation for lost profits and the value of minerals extracted by third parties while its rights were revoked. The government disputed the amounts claimed.
\n * **The Court’s Assessment:** Analyzes the situation, acknowledging the reinstatement of the company’s rights but also recognizing the period during which the company was unable to operate. It addresses conflicting data regarding the amount of minerals extracted by third parties and ultimately awards compensation based on an equitable assessment.
\n * **Costs and Expenses Following the Court\u2019s Principal Judgment:** Details the applicant’s claims for legal fees and expert fees incurred after the principal judgment, and the Court’s decision to award a portion of the claimed amount.
\n * **Default Interest:** Specifies that default interest will be applied to the awarded amounts based on the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
\n * **Holds:** Summarizes the Court’s decision, specifying the amounts to be paid to the applicant company for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, as well as the applicable default interest.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Restitution vs. Compensation:** The judgment highlights the principle that states should, as far as possible, restore the situation existing before a violation. However, when full restitution is not possible, the Court can award just satisfaction.
\n * **Assessment of Pecuniary Damage:** The Court’s assessment considers various factors, including estimates of extracted materials, market prices, extraction costs, and the company’s past profits. It also acknowledges the inherent difficulties in precisely quantifying losses and may rule in equity.
\n * **Good Governance:** The judgment refers to the principle of “good governance,” emphasizing that states should resolve disputes giving due consideration to this principle.
\n * **Costs and Expenses:** The Court may award costs and expenses incurred in both domestic proceedings aimed at rectifying the violation and in the proceedings before the Court itself.<\/p>\n

This decision clarifies how the ECtHR approaches the issue of just satisfaction when a violation of property rights has occurred, particularly when domestic remedies have been pursued but have not fully compensated the injured party.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF KAGANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE (No. 2) Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the decision in the case of Kaganovskyy v. Ukraine (No. 2). **1. Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 4, and 5 of the European…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15548\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}