{"id":16620,"date":"2026-05-14T10:21:17","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T07:21:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/05\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-14-05-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-05-14T10:21:17","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T07:21:17","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-14-05-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/05\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-14-05-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 14\/05\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ASHYROV AND SKOKOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Ashyrov and Skokov v. Russia, concerning two Ukrainian nationals who complained about restrictions on their freedom of religion. The applicants were fined for violating Russian legislation on unlawful missionary work in Crimea. The ECtHR found that these restrictions were unjustified and constituted a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court emphasized that the convictions occurred in Crimea, which is Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation, and through the application of Russian law, which was extended to Crimea in violation of the Convention. The Court decided not to examine additional complaints raised by the applicants under Articles 6, 10, and 14 of the Convention, considering that the principal legal questions had already been addressed. The Court awarded each applicant 7,500 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the applications and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by a legal analysis that includes the joinder of the applications and the Court’s jurisdiction. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 9, referencing a previous leading case, Ossewaarde v. Russia, and emphasizing the illegal application of Russian law in Crimea. Finally, it addresses the remaining complaints and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding damages to the applicants.<\/p>\n

: The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that Russia violated Article 9 of the Convention by applying its legislation on missionary work in Crimea, which is Ukrainian territory. This reaffirms the Court’s stance on Russia’s illegal extension of its legal framework to Crimea and its impact on the human rights of Ukrainian citizens. This decision underscores that the restrictions on religious freedom imposed by Russia in Crimea are a breach of the Convention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Kovalevskyy v. Ukraine, concerning deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. The applicant complained about the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention. The Court found that there had been a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention due to the lack of speediness in the review process, referencing a similar previous case against Ukraine, Kharchenko v. Ukraine. As a result, the Court declared the application admissible and awarded the applicant 500 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, outlining the application’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by the legal analysis regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The Court refers to its established case-law, particularly the Kharchenko v. Ukraine case, to support its finding of a violation. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and specifies the amounts to be paid to the applicant. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.<\/p>\n

**** The main provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the importance of a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention, as guaranteed by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The reference to the Kharchenko v. Ukraine case highlights a recurring issue within the Ukrainian legal system regarding the efficiency of detention review proceedings. This decision underscores the obligation of the Ukrainian State to ensure that individuals deprived of their liberty have access to a swift and effective judicial review of their detention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of effective domestic remedies for these conditions. The Court found that the applicants were held in poor conditions, including overcrowding, lack of fresh air, and inadequate hygienic facilities. The Ukrainian government failed to provide evidence that domestic remedies, such as seeking compensation or using a special commission, were effective in practice. Consequently, the Court deemed the complaints admissible and found a breach of the Convention, awarding compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Ukraine concerning detention conditions.
\n * **Facts:** The applicants complained about inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies.
\n * **Law:**
\n * The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
\n * It examined the complaints under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
\n * The Court rejected the Government’s argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, citing previous case-law that compensatory remedies are only effective after the unsatisfactory conditions have ended.
\n * The Court also dismissed the argument regarding legislative amendments introducing a special commission, as there was no evidence of its practical effectiveness.
\n * The Court referred to established principles regarding inadequate detention conditions, emphasizing the importance of personal space and overall conditions.
\n * It cited previous similar cases against Ukraine, such as Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine, where violations were found.
\n * The Court outlined the standard of proof required in such cases, expecting the government to provide detailed evidence regarding cell conditions.
\n * The Court found that the applicants’ detention conditions were inadequate and that they lacked effective remedies.
\n * Some applicants raised additional complaints, which the Court also found admissible and in violation of the Convention based on established case-law.
\n * Other complaints were rejected as not meeting the admissibility criteria or not disclosing any violation.
\n * The Court applied Article 41 of the Convention, awarding compensation to the applicants.
\n * **Decision:** The Court declared the complaints admissible, found violations of Articles 3 and 13, and awarded compensation.<\/p>\n

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

* **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance on what constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment in detention, particularly concerning overcrowding, hygiene, and access to basic necessities.
\n * **Effective Remedy:** The judgment highlights the requirement for states to provide effective domestic remedies for complaints about detention conditions. The Court emphasized that remedies must be practical and capable of addressing the issues in real-time, not just theoretically available.
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The decision clarifies the burden of proof in detention condition cases, requiring the government to provide detailed evidence to counter allegations of ill-treatment.
\n * **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions in Ukraine.
\n * **** The decision confirms the continued systemic problem of inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies in Ukraine, even after legislative amendments aimed at addressing these issues.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SERVIZI ECOLOGICI DI MARCHESE GIOSE’ v. ITALY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

Okay, here is the analysis of the decision in the case of *Servizi Ecologici di Marchese Gios\u00e8 v. Italy*.<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Italy in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions and the delayed payment of debts owed to the applicant company, Servizi Ecologici di Marchese Gios\u00e8, by publicly controlled debtor companies. The Court determined that the debtor companies, established by public authorities for waste management, were essentially instruments of the municipalities, making the state liable for their debts. The excessive delays in enforcing judgments and paying debts were deemed a breach of the applicant’s rights. The ECHR ordered Italy to enforce the pending domestic decisions, pay the overdue debts, and compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the applications and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, followed by a joint examination of the applications due to their similar subject matter. The legal analysis addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions, establishing the state’s responsibility for the debtor companies’ actions. It references previous case law to support the finding of a violation. The decision further examines alleged violations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the delayed payment of debts, again citing prior cases with similar issues. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicant and mandating the enforcement of judgments and payment of debts. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment on these applications.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those that establish the Italian State’s liability for the debts of publicly controlled companies and the finding that the lengthy delays in enforcing court decisions and paying admitted debts constitute violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision reinforces the principle that the execution of judgments is an integral part of a fair trial and that states must ensure timely payment of debts acknowledged by domestic courts, especially when state entities are involved.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

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

Here’s a breakdown of the Shaykin 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 Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility and the lack of effective remedies for these conditions. The applicants complained about issues such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, lack of access to basic necessities, and insufficient exercise. The Court emphasized that the conditions were degrading and that Ukraine failed to provide effective domestic remedies to address these issues. In some cases, the Court also found violations related to the length of detention reviews and criminal proceedings. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for the damages suffered.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Ukraine concerning detention conditions.
\n * **Facts:** The applicants detailed the inadequate conditions of their detention, including overcrowding, poor hygiene, and lack of access to basic necessities.
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Articles 3 and 13:** The Court focused on the complaints regarding inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies. It rejected the Government’s argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted, citing its previous case-law that compensatory remedies are only effective after the unsatisfactory conditions have ended.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** In some applications, the Court found additional violations related to the length of detention reviews (Article 5(4)) and criminal proceedings (Article 6(1)), as well as the lack of effective remedies for the excessive length of proceedings (Article 13).
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** Some complaints were deemed inadmissible because they did not meet the criteria set out in the Convention.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

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

* **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance on what constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, particularly in the context of detention facilities. It highlights specific issues such as overcrowding, lack of hygiene, and insufficient access to basic necessities.
\n * **Effective Remedy:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing effective domestic remedies for complaints regarding detention conditions, in accordance with Article 13.
\n * **Standard of Proof:** The Court refers to its standard of proof, requiring the government to provide primary evidence, such as cell floor plans and the number of inmates, to counter allegations of ill-treatment.
\n * **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for the amounts to be awarded in similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions and related violations.
\n * **Other Violations:** The decision highlights the importance of timely review of detention orders and reasonable length of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is related to Ukraine and highlights the systematic issues within its detention facilities. It underscores the need for Ukraine to improve detention conditions and provide effective remedies for those detained in inadequate conditions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF USATYUK 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 Usatyuk v. Ukraine.<\/p>\n

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of the applicant, Mr. Usatyuk’s, pre-trial detention. The Court also identified violations related to the lack of effective compensation for unlawful detention under Article 5(5). The Court highlighted deficiencies in the domestic court’s reasoning, failure to consider alternative measures to detention, lack of diligence in proceedings, and failure to assess the applicant’s personal circumstances. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Usatyuk EUR 1,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

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

* **Procedure:** The judgment starts by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged against Ukraine in 2024 and that the applicant was represented by a lawyer.
\n* **Facts:** It briefly refers to the applicant’s details, which are provided in an appended table.
\n* **Law:** This section details the applicant’s complaints, primarily focusing on the excessive length of pre-trial detention under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It references previous ECtHR judgments on similar issues, particularly Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine.
\n* **Article 5 \u00a7 3 Violation:** The Court concludes that the length of Mr. Usatyuk’s pre-trial detention was unreasonably excessive, thus violating Article 5 \u00a7 3.
\n* **Other Violations:** The Court also addresses other complaints, finding them admissible and disclosing violations based on well-established case-law, specifically related to the lack of effective compensation for unlawful arrest or detention.
\n* **Remaining Complaints:** Complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 4 were deemed inadmissible.
\n* **Article 41 Application:** The Court, referring to its case-law, decides on the compensation to be awarded to the applicant.
\n* **Operative Part:** The judgment formally declares the complaints regarding excessive pre-trial detention and other related issues admissible, while the remaining complaints are inadmissible. It explicitly holds that there was a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3 and other violations under established case-law. It orders Ukraine to pay the applicant specified amounts for damages and costs.
\n* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a summary table with key details of the application, including the applicant’s name, detention period, specific defects identified, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.<\/p>\n

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

* **Excessive Length of Pre-trial Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be reasonable in length and that domestic courts must provide sufficient justification for prolonged detention.
\n* **Consideration of Alternatives:** Courts must actively consider alternative measures to detention to ensure attendance at trial.
\n* **Diligent Proceedings:** The proceedings must be conducted diligently to avoid excessive delays in pre-trial detention.
\n* **Assessment of Personal Circumstances:** The applicant’s personal circumstances should be assessed to determine the risk of collusion or absconding.
\n* **Effective Compensation:** The decision highlights the importance of having an effective legal system that provides compensation for violations of Article 5 \u00a7 3, particularly concerning unlawful arrest or detention.
\n* **** The decision is important for Ukraine, as it highlights systemic issues related to pre-trial detention and the lack of effective remedies for violations of Article 5 of the Convention. This ruling may prompt Ukraine to review its legislation and practices to ensure compliance with the Convention standards.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF \u017dIVKOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO<\/strong><\/h3>\n

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

This is the analysis of the decision in the case of \u017divkovi\u0107 and Others v. Montenegro.<\/p>\n

**Essence of the Decision**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Montenegro in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of constitutional proceedings in eight separate applications. The applicants complained that the duration of their civil proceedings was unreasonably long. The Court examined the cases jointly, referencing its established case-law on similar issues. It determined that the length of the proceedings at the national level was not justified and thus breached the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs, to be paid by Montenegro within three months, with interest accruing thereafter.<\/p>\n

**Structure and Main Provisions**<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n

* **Procedure:** Describes the lodging of the applications and notification to the Montenegrin Government.
\n* **Facts:** Lists the applicants and details of their complaints regarding the length of constitutional proceedings.
\n* **Law:**
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** Explains the decision to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** Details the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1, referencing the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, including complexity, applicant conduct, and stakes involved. It refers to previous similar cases against Montenegro where violations were found. The Court dismisses the Government\u2019s objection regarding abuse of the right of application.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs based on the Court’s case-law.
\n* **For These Reasons, the Court:**
\n * Formally joins the applications.
\n * Declares the applications admissible.
\n * Holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1.
\n * Orders Montenegro to pay the specified amounts within three months, with interest on delayed payments.
\n* **Appendix:** Provides a table listing the applications, applicant details, dates of proceedings, length of proceedings, and amounts awarded.<\/p>\n

There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this appears to be the final judgment.<\/p>\n

**Main Provisions for Use**<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are:<\/p>\n

* The reaffirmation of the ECtHR’s position that excessive delays in constitutional proceedings can violate Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.
\n* The application of established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings.
\n* The dismissal of the Government’s objection regarding abuse of the right of application, clarifying the standard for establishing responsibility in such cases.
\n* The specific amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs, which serve as a reference for similar cases.
\n* The clear statement that Montenegro failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement, reinforcing the need for efficient judicial processes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF ASHYROV AND SKOKOV v. RUSSIA The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Ashyrov and Skokov v. Russia, concerning two Ukrainian nationals who complained about restrictions on their freedom of religion. The applicants were fined for violating Russian legislation on unlawful missionary work in Crimea. The ECtHR…<\/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-16620","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\/16620","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=16620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}