{"id":16228,"date":"2026-04-17T10:39:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T07:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/04\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-17-04-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-04-17T10:39:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T07:39:12","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-17-04-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/04\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-17-04-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 17\/04\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF FARCHESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Romania regarding the ineffectiveness of the restitution mechanism for properties confiscated or nationalized during the communist regime. The applicants complained that they were unable to recover their properties or obtain compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that this situation constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection regarding one application, finding no abuse of the right of individual application. The Court emphasized that the authorities did not make sufficient efforts to enforce the decisions in favor of the applicants.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of applications, alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction). The decision refers to the leading case of V\u01celeanu and Others v. Romania, which addressed similar issues. The Court applied the methodology established in V\u0103leanu and Others (just satisfaction) for calculating pecuniary damage, rejecting the relevance of Emergency Ordinance no. 38\/2025, which came into force after the applications were lodged. The Court also awarded amounts for non-pecuniary damage and, in some cases, costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of the decision are those concerning the enforcement of the outstanding judgments in the applicants\u2019 favor and the calculation of compensation. The Court ordered Romania to ensure the enforcement of the judgments involving the return of properties within twelve months. Failing such enforcement, the State is required to pay the applicants the amounts indicated in the appendix for pecuniary damage. The Court also specified that any compensation already enforced in favor of the applicants should be deducted from the amounts awarded to prevent unjust enrichment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

Okay, here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Grinkov v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the unlawful detention of the applicant, Mr. Grinkov. The Court determined that his detention lacked a proper legal basis, specifically because he was arrested without a prior court decision. Additionally, the Court identified deficiencies in the arrest protocol and a failure by national courts to adequately address the applicant’s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of his arrest. The Court also found violations regarding the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay Mr. Grinkov compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n The judgment begins by outlining the procedure, including the applicant’s representation and the notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by the legal analysis. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 concerning unlawful detention, referencing previous case law to support its findings. The Court emphasizes that any deprivation of liberty must comply with both national law and the purpose of protecting individuals from arbitrariness. The decision also addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, finding them admissible and also disclosing violations of the Convention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicant. The appendix provides a summary table with key details such as the applicant’s information, the period of unlawful detention, specific defects in the detention, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
\n * **Unlawful Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that detention without a prior court decision, when no legal basis exists, violates Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.
\n * **Deficiencies in Arrest Protocol:** The judgment highlights the importance of a detailed and legally sound arrest protocol, especially when an arrest occurs without prior court authorization.
\n * **Judicial Review of Detention:** National courts must thoroughly address arguments regarding the unlawfulness of detention, ensuring that the detention is not arbitrary.
\n * **Compensation for Unlawful Detention:** The decision underscores the right to compensation for unlawful arrest or detention, as per Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly in ensuring that arrests and detentions are carried out with full respect for the law and the Convention. It also highlights the need for effective judicial review of detention and adequate compensation for victims of unlawful detention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KYRYK AND GONCHAR v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Okay, here is the analysis of the decision in Kyryk and Gonchar v. Ukraine.<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of Kyryk and Gonchar due to ineffective investigations into incidents involving deaths or life-threatening injuries where State agents were not directly involved. The Court found shortcomings in the investigations, which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the incidents and determine responsibility. The Court highlighted issues such as a lack of thoroughness, promptness, and proper safeguarding of the applicants’ rights as victims. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the origin of the applications and the notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts of the cases, followed by the legal considerations. The Court decided to join the two applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 2, focusing on the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation. The Court references established principles on investigative effectiveness, including adequacy, promptness, involvement of the family, and independence. The Court emphasizes that the obligation is one of means rather than results but should lead to establishing facts and identifying those responsible. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. An appendix details the specifics of each case, including applicant information, case background, key issues, and awarded amounts.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the criteria for an effective investigation under Article 2 of the Convention. The Court reiterates the need for investigations to be adequate, prompt, involve the family of the deceased, and be independent. The decision underscores that investigations must be thorough enough to establish the facts of the case and, if allegations are true, identify and punish those responsible. This judgment can be used to highlight systemic issues in Ukraine regarding the effectiveness of investigations into deaths and life-threatening accidents, particularly where there is criticism from national authorities regarding the lack of efficiency and thoroughness.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SELIMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Selimyan and Others v. Armenia*, concerning complaints of unlawful deprivation of liberty. The applicants alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to liberty and security. The Court found that the applicants’ arrests were not based on a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, thus violating Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court ruled that Armenia must pay each applicant 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as 250 euros for costs and expenses. The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining how the case was brought before the Court. It then presents the facts, identifying the applicants and the specifics of their complaints. The legal analysis follows, addressing the joinder of the applications and the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1. The Court refers to its established case-law, particularly the *Ishkhanyan v. Armenia* case, which dealt with similar issues. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, specifying the compensation to be paid to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions of the decision.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principle that any deprivation of liberty must be based on a “reasonable suspicion” of having committed an offence. The Court emphasizes that compliance with national law is not sufficient; the deprivation of liberty must also be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness. This judgment serves as a reminder to Armenia, and other member states, that arrests must be justified by concrete evidence and not based on vague or unsubstantiated suspicions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SHKUROPATSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Shkuropatskyy and Others v. Ukraine*, concerning complaints about the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian law. The Court found that the length of the proceedings in each applicant’s case was indeed excessive and violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Additionally, the Court determined that the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the length of these proceedings, violating Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 800 to EUR 1,300 for non-pecuniary damage. One applicant also raised complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, but the Court rejected this part of the application.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the origin of the applications and the notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, including a list of applicants and details of their applications. The legal analysis section addresses the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the judgment focuses on the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, referencing previous case law, particularly *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, to support its findings. Finally, the judgment addresses the remaining complaints and the application of Article 41, which concerns just satisfaction. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to join the applications, declare certain complaints admissible and others inadmissible, hold that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, and order Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

**** The most important provisions of this decision are the reaffirmation of the ECtHR’s stance on the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective remedies. The Court explicitly refers to its previous judgment in *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, indicating a consistent pattern of similar violations. This decision serves as a reminder to Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention to ensure the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and to provide effective remedies for violations of this right. The amounts awarded, while relatively modest, underscore the Court’s finding of a breach and its intention to provide redress to the applicants.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SINKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Sinko and Others 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 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) due to the ineffectiveness of domestic investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. These deaths allegedly resulted from medical negligence. The Court emphasized that the domestic proceedings were undermined by various shortcomings, preventing the establishment of circumstances surrounding the deaths and identification of responsible parties. The ECtHR joined the applications due to their similar subject matter. While some applicants also raised complaints under the substantive limb of Article 2, these were deemed inadmissible. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and, in some cases, for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the right to life.
\n * **Facts:** The judgment refers to the list of applicants and details of their applications in the appended table.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 2:** The core of the judgment focuses on the alleged ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings regarding deaths from medical negligence, examined under the procedural obligations of Article 2.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** Additional complaints raised under the substantive limb of Article 2 were deemed inadmissible.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined just satisfaction, awarding sums for non-pecuniary damage and dismissing remaining claims.
\n * **Decision:** The Court declared the complaints regarding ineffective investigations admissible, found a breach of Article 2, ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts, and dismissed the remaining claims.
\n * **Appendix:** The appendix contains a list of applications, details of the applicants, background to the cases, key issues, and amounts awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedural Obligation under Article 2:** The decision reinforces the State’s duty to conduct effective investigations into deaths potentially caused by medical negligence.
\n * **Shortcomings in Domestic Proceedings:** The judgment highlights specific failures in the domestic proceedings, such as delays, lack of diligence, failure to establish essential facts, and shortcomings in expert examinations.
\n * **Consistency with Case Law:** The Court refers to its previous judgments in similar cases against Ukraine, indicating a pattern of violations related to ineffective investigations in medical negligence cases.
\n * **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for awarding compensation to victims of ineffective investigations into medical negligence cases.
\n * **Admissibility Criteria:** The judgment clarifies the admissibility criteria for complaints under Article 2, distinguishing between procedural and substantive limbs.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is related to Ukraine.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of Tyshkovets v. Ukraine. The applicant, serving a life sentence, complained about the lack of a realistic prospect of release before March 3, 2023. The Court determined that the absence of a clear mechanism for reviewing life sentences before that date constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. However, the Court considered that after March 3, 2023, a new mechanism offered a realistic opportunity for review, rendering complaints about the irreducibility of the life sentence after that date inadmissible. The Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s procedural history, including the date of application, the applicant’s representation, and notification to the Ukrainian Government.
\n * **Facts:** This section briefly refers to the appended table for the applicant’s details and relevant information.
\n * **Law – Alleged Violation of Article 3:**
\n * The Court reiterates that life sentences are not per se prohibited by the Convention but must be reducible both *de jure* and *de facto*.
\n * It refers to previous case law, particularly *Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2)* and *Medvid v. Ukraine*, which established similar violations and clarified the timeline for the new parole mechanism.
\n * The Court distinguishes between the period before and after March 3, 2023, when a new release on parole mechanism became fully operational.
\n * Complaints related to the period after March 3, 2023, were deemed inadmissible because the new mechanism offered a realistic opportunity for review.
\n * Complaints related to the period before March 3, 2023, were deemed admissible and found to be in violation of Article 3.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.
\n * **Appendix:** Provides specific details about the applicant, including the date of the life sentence and the judicial decision upholding the conviction.<\/p>\n

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

* **Irreducibility of Life Sentences:** The decision reinforces the principle that life sentences must be reducible, with a prospect of release and a possibility of review, to be compatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
\n * **Temporal Limitation:** The decision highlights the importance of the date of March 3, 2023, as the point when Ukraine’s new release on parole mechanism became fully operational. This date is crucial for assessing similar complaints regarding life sentences in Ukraine.
\n * **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s decision not to award additional compensation beyond the finding of a violation may influence future cases with similar circumstances.
\n * **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The decision relies heavily on previous case law, particularly *Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2)* and *Medvid v. Ukraine*, which provides a context for understanding the Court’s reasoning.<\/p>\n

**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it addresses the issue of life sentences and the need for a clear and realistic mechanism for review and potential release. It also affects Ukrainians serving life sentences, as it clarifies their rights under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to a lack of reasoning in a court decision. The applicant, Larysa Vorobyova, complained that the Dnipro Court of Appeal failed to address key arguments she raised in her appeal concerning the presentation of the original promissory note in a debt recovery case. The ECtHR concluded that the domestic courts did not provide adequate reasons for their decisions and failed to address pertinent arguments, thus depriving the applicant of her right to a reasoned court decision. As a result, the Court declared the application admissible and awarded the applicant 1,500 euros in damages.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged against Ukraine on June 10, 2022.
\n * **Facts:** It summarizes the relevant details of the applicant and the background of the case, including the domestic proceedings.
\n * **Law:** The judgment focuses on the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
\n * **Court’s Reasoning:** The ECtHR reiterates its established case-law that it should not act as a court of fourth instance unless the national courts’ findings are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. It emphasizes the obligation of domestic courts to provide reasons for their judgments, referencing previous cases such as *Ruiz Torija v. Spain* and *Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain*.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court awards the applicant 1,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage, considering the documents in its possession and its case-law.
\n * **Decision:** The Court unanimously declares the application admissible, holds that there was a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1, and orders Ukraine to pay the specified amount within three months, with interest on any delayed payment.
\n * **Appendix:** The appendix provides specific details of the application, including the applicant’s information, the subject matter of the domestic proceedings, the key arguments the court failed to address, and the amount awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** The core finding is that Ukraine violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention due to the lack of reasoning in the Dnipro Court of Appeal’s decision.
\n * **Duty to Provide Reasons:** The judgment underscores the duty of domestic courts to provide reasons for their decisions and to address pertinent and important arguments raised by the parties.
\n * **Specific Procedural Failings:** The Court highlights that the Dnipro Court of Appeal did not address the applicant’s argument that she had presented the original promissory note to the first-instance court.
\n * **Award for Damages:** The applicant was awarded 1,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage, reflecting the Court’s assessment of appropriate compensation.
\n * **Precedent and Case-Law:** The judgment references established case-law, such as *Ruiz Torija v. Spain* and *Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain*, emphasizing the importance of reasoned court decisions.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is related to Ukraine and highlights the importance of reasoned court decisions in ensuring a fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF FARCHESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA This judgment concerns multiple applications against Romania regarding the ineffectiveness of the restitution mechanism for properties confiscated or nationalized during the communist regime. The applicants complained that they were unable to recover their properties or obtain compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their rights. The European Court of Human…<\/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-16228","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\/16228","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=16228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}