Population groups / Ukrainians

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

March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

February 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

December 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

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

November 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

October 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

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

September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports