European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KRYVCHENKO AND OLIYNYK v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 58568/17 and 22219/18)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

4 July 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kryvchenko and Oliynyk v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Carlo Ranzoni, President,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 María Elósegui, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 June 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. THE LOCUS STANDI OF MRs Olena Leonidivna Kryvchenko IN APPLICATION NO. 58568/17

5.  The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 58568/17 died on 24 October 2018, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant's widow, Mrs Olena Leonidivna Kryvchenko, has requested to pursue the application on her late husband's behalf. The Court points out that in various cases, where applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the wishes of their heirs or close members of their families to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, X. v. France, Series A no. 234-C, p. 89, § 26, and Jama v. Slovenia, no. 48163/08, § 28, 19 July 2012). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case and, therefore, accepts that the applicant's wife, Mrs Olena Leonidivna Kryvchenko, can pursue the application initially brought by him. However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present judgment.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention

6.  The applicants complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in a court decision. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

7.  The Court reiterates that, according to its long-standing and established case-law, it should not act as a court of fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, with further references).

8.  Article 6 § 1 obliges domestic courts to give reasons for their judgments. This duty cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument, and the question of compliance with that duty can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I). Those principles were applied in a number of Ukrainian cases (see, for example, Benderskiy v. Ukraine, no. 22750/02, §§ 42-47, 15 November 2007; Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006; and Bogatova v. Ukraine, no. 5231/04, §§ 18 and 19, 7 October 2010).

9.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed in their duty to provide reasons for their decisions and did not address pertinent and important arguments raised by the applicants. The specific procedural failings, indicated in the appended table, prompt the Court to conclude that the applicants were stripped of their right to a reasoned court decision.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Pronina v, cited above, § 29), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Decides that Mrs Olena Leonidivna Kryvchenko, the widow of the applicant in application no. 58568/17, has locus standi in the proceedings;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decision;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decision)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.