Ukraine

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,Joins to the merits the Government’s objection as to the first applicant’s victim status regarding her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and rejects it; Declares the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning her removal from Ukraine and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard admissible and the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the first applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention

15 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Ukraine

The court found violations of Article 3 ECHR, A violation of Article 5 §3 ECHR, Article 5 §5 ECHR when the applicant was kept in a prison cell with a serious lack of space, when the applicant was not a flight risk and the detention order did not demonstrate a need for detention, and when there was no right to compensation under national law.

25 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Ukraine

The Court found violations of articles 3, 5§1, and 5§5, when the applicant was kept in a cell measuring only 1.4 meters in pre-trial detention, placed in a metal cage during appellate proceedings, was not released immediately despite being granted refugee status in Sweden, and when the applicant had no available compensation under domestic law.

18 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Ukraine - Uzbekistan

14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Russian Federation - Ukraine

This country guidance covers: - Acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct - Country guidance: the conduct of the Ukrainian military in the conflict in the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone (“the ATO”) - Country guidance: conscripts and mobilised reservists in Ukraine

30 November 2020 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Ukraine - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its decision in the Kandyba and Others against Ukraine case regarding payment of pensions to residents of non-governmental controlled areas (NGCA) of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. In their application to national courts, several pensioners requested cancelation of some provisions of Governmental Resolution #595 of 7 November 2014. This Resolution suspended the payment of pensions in the non-controlled territory. The applicants’ request was satisfied in 2016. Pensioners considered that with cancelation of the contradictory provisions in the governmental resolution, their pensions will be reinstated automatically. However, this did not take place and applicants decided to apply to the ECtHR. The Court dismissed the claim stating that applicants should have applied to a different respondent (the Pension Fund of Ukraine) and specifically asked to reinstate the suspended pensions. The ECtHR mentioned that there are upcoming judgements in cases where they will consider whether or not there is an obligation of the state to pay pensions to people living in NGCA.

19 November 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

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

6 August 2020 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Statelessness | Countries: Ukraine

The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints, under Article 5 of the Convention, that their arrest and detention as migrants in an irregular situation were unlawful, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and had no effective access to the procedure to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. It also concerns the eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered.

16 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Eritrea - Guinea - Somalia - Ukraine

For these reasons, the court, unanimously: Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible: (i) the first and eighth applicants’ complaints that their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders did not comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and (ii) the sixth, seventh and ninth applicants’ complaints that their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders prior to 10 August, 5 November and 22 May 2012 respectively did not comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of second to ninth applicants, on account of lack of records of their arrest and detention prior to the issuance of detention orders in respect of them; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the second to fifth applicants on account of their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders in the absence of a decision ordering their expulsion; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the sixth applicant on account of his detention from 10 August to 17 October 2012, in respect of the seventh applicant on account of his detention from 5 to 23 November and in respect of the ninth applicant on account of his detention from 22 May to 17 October 2012; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the first and the sixth to ninth applicants.

18 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Immigration Detention | Countries: Somalia - Ukraine