Ukraine

The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court.

11 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine

In January 2015, the applicant’s house was destroyed by ordnances. A commission examined the level of destruction and recognized it as inevitable. The applicant referred to the court claiming a compensation according to the Civil Protection Code, the Law on combatting terrorism and the Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The requested amount of compensation was 1 156 356,50 UAH. The applicant’s claim was rejected in the lower instance courts. The applicant appealed the decisions of the lower-instance courts and reached the Supreme Court. The latter decided that the applicant is entitled to compensation due to the state’s failure to elaborate the relevant compensation mechanism as a protection measure of the property right. Ukraine is now obliged to compensate for the damaged housing under Protocol 1 to the ECHR. There is no clear mechanism on the payment of compensations though. Therefore, the Court assigned 100,000 UAH of compensation from the State Budget of Ukraine, which is much lower than an applicant requested. However, the decision is final and cannot be disputed in Ukraine.

25 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

This is an appeal against a decision of a refugee and protection officer declining to grant refugee status or protected person status to the appellants who are a mother (the mother) and son (the son). The mother is a citizen of the Ukraine. She is also a Russian citizen. The son was born in New Zealand. There is some dispute concerning his nationality but, as will be seen below, the Tribunal finds him to be entitled to Ukrainian citizenship.

17 February 2020 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: New Zealand - Ukraine

On 26 December 2019, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case concerning the registration of the fact of death having occurred in Donetsk NGCA. The application was submitted along with the claim for the accumulated pension debt of a deceased husband. There was no decision regarding the accumulated pension debt, since the first step concerned registration of the fact of death that occurred in the NGCA and exemption from the court fee. In its decision the Supreme Court interprets a complex legal rule which regulates the exemption from court fees in cases establishing legal facts (birth, death, marriage etc.) “that were submitted to the court in connection with armed aggression, armed conflict, temporary occupation and resulted in internal displacement, wounds, captivity or violated property rights”. The Court insisted that such exemption should be granted only if an application is submitted in relation to an armed conflict (e.g. death due to shelling or wounds), while in the present case recognition of the fact of death is related to the issue of pension. In addition to this, the Court stated that in cases related to the registration of the fact of death of those who went missing or dead during the ATO/JFO but on reasons not directly related to hostilities, the applicants are obliged to pay court fees, but may request their reimbursement.

20 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Internal armed conflict - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

On 4 September 2019, the Supreme Court adopted its Resolution with regard to compensation for destroyed commercial premises caused by acts of terrorism. On 4 November 2016, the applicant referred to a first-instance court, requesting a compensation for her commercial premises destroyed during the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Mariupol. The main argumentation was based on the lack of a special order regulating payment of compensation for the ATO consequences in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and applicability of relevant European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. A first-instance court stated that Ukraine should compensate damages/destructions caused by an act of terrorism from the State Budget funds irrespective of Ukraine’s culpability. Simultaneously, the state preserves the right of recourse claim on reimbursing compensation from those liable for acts of terrorism. The Court of Appeals supported this decision. The Supreme Court stated that under Protocol 1 to the European Human Rights Convention an applicant has a right to claim compensation for her damaged or destroyed property irrespective of the fact that the national legal framework on compensatory mechanism is non-existent. It underlined that there is a need to clarify which obligations of the state were violated. Non-fulfilment of positive obligations (introducing a legal framework to ensure that property right violated in the course of the conflict may be effectively protected) or negative obligations (which requires non-interference with the peaceful ownership) will result in the different level of compensation. Since the decisions of lower instance courts did not clarify which particular obligations of the state (positive or negative) were violated, the Supreme Court re-submitted this case to a first-instance court for re-examination.

4 September 2019 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Terrorism - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

On 22 October 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision issued stating that in exceptional cases leading to serious human rights violations and/or limitations the documents issued by de facto authorities at NGCA should be taken into account. The Supreme Court issued this decision in relation to documents proving necessary work experience and work conditions for the assignment of special pensions. Currently, in NGCA such documents may be issued by enterprises with stamps containing logos and other elements of the de facto authorities. The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based in international jurisprudence. According to the Supreme Court, the recognition of such documents does not amount to the recognition of the de facto authorities.

22 October 2018 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

On 2 October 2018, the Supreme Court of Ukraine issued a decision allowing the payment of benefits upon birth after the delay for application to such benefits expired. Referring to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Court highlighted that this assistance is granted for the benefit of the child per se in order to ensure that he/she has access to proper material support. Therefore, the parent(s) [objective] impossibility of timely application for such benefits leads to a violation of the rights of the child.

2 October 2018 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Right to registration at birth - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

On 04 July 2018, the Kyiv Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court dd. 29 June 2017 on recognizing several points of Governmental Resolutions 365 and 637 as not corresponding to the Law on IDPs and Law on ensuring the mandatory State pension. Referring to the legislation in force, the Kyiv Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of the lower instance court on the discriminatory nature of the disputed points as they define additional criteria for IDPs willing to receive social benefits and pensions. The existence of such criteria put IDP-pensioners in less favourable conditions in comparison with other pensioners and social benefits’ recipients.

4 July 2018 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Appeal Courts | Topic(s): Internally displaced persons (IDPs) - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

THE COURT HELD: The administrative claim of PERSON to the Bakhmut Joint Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk Oblast on the recognition of unlawful actions and obligation to take certain actions shall be satisfied to the full extent. The Decree "On Suspension of Payment of Pension to PERSON_6 Until Clarification" of the Bakhmut Joint Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk Oblast of March 24, 2017, is declared unlawful and is cancelled. The Bakhmut Joint Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Donetsk Oblast is obliged to resume payment of pension to PERSON_6, from April 01, 2017. [...]

3 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) | Countries: Ukraine