Ukraine: Supreme Court

This case concerned an applicant who was stateless. This is an unofficial translation.

6 August 2020 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Statelessness | Countries: 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 | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Ukrainians | Countries: 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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Right to registration at birth - 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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) | Countries: Ukraine

On 14 March 2018, the Supreme Court of Ukraine established the fact that forced displacement in July 2014 of the applicants in a case from the “occupied part of the Luhansk region” occurred as a result of the “armed aggression” of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the occupation of the part of the Luhansk region by the Russian Federation. Both the first instance court and the court of appeal rejected the application indicating that the establishment of such reasons for internal displacement and its further clarification into a legal fact do not fall under the competence of the court of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided to establish a clear link between the “widely known and accepted fact of the Russian aggression” and the forced displacement.

14 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internally displaced persons (IDPs) - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

Administrative cases; Cases on disputes over the implementation of public policies in the areas of labour, employment and social protection of citizens and disputes in the area of public housing policy, namely, disputes regarding: management, supervision and other administrative functions (assignment, recalculation and implementation of insurance benefits) in the area of the corresponding types of obligatory state social insurance, including: obligatory state pension insurance, including pension insurance for persons dismissed from the public service (military service)

30 January 2018 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Ukraine