The Supreme Court has prepared another review of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights for November – December 2021.
All the decisions described are important and relevant for the legal system of Ukraine.
Below we briefly highlight some of them.
In the case of IVAN KARPENKO v. Ukraine The ECtHR actually confirmed the correctness of the legislator's position regarding the cancellation of the ban on a person serving life imprisonment to communicate with other convicts, as this is a violation of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The violation of the applicant's rights in the present case was caused by the lack of opportunity to challenge the disciplinary sanction imposed on him for violating this ban, and also by the fact that, even after the introduction of the relevant legislative changes, the ban on communicating with other convicts continued to apply to him.
In this case, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.
The ECtHR also emphasized the importance of consideration by the courts of the defense's claim of provocation to commit a crime in the case of YAKHYMOVYCH v. Ukraine. Violation of Clause 1 of Article 6 of the Convention in this case was established due to improper consideration of such a statement by the courts.
The case SHABELNIK v. Ukraine (NO. 3) The ECtHR examined from the standpoint of the Supreme Court's observance of Article 7 of the Convention within the framework of the review of the applicant's case under exceptional circumstances after the ECtHR adopted the decision in the case "Shabelnyk v. Ukraine (No. 2)" (No. 15685/11), stating that there was no violation.
The issue of compliance with freedom of expression due to the requirement for the applicant company – the owner of the newspaper – to disclose the data of the users of its website who posted their comments under the articles was clarified by the ECtHR in the case of Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 3). The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, since the national courts that decided on the disclosure of information about commentators at the request of other persons did not balance the relevant rights and did not provide sufficient reasons to justify interference with the rights of the applicant company.
As usual, the review contains a list of decisions made by the ECtHR in cases concerning Ukraine.