ECtHR Judgment in Kryvchenko and Oliinyk v. Ukraine: Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial
On 4 July 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in the case of “Kryvchenko and Oliinyk v. Ukraine”.
In this case, the ECtHR examined the applicants’ complaints concerning a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The main issues concerned the lack of sufficient reasoning in the decisions of the national courts and their failure to address important arguments raised by the applicants.
The first applicant, Olena Kryvchenko, complained that the national courts had failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing to recalculate the pension of her husband, a former police officer who died before the ECtHR delivered its judgment. In her case, the ECtHR noted that the appellate court, when considering the issue of recalculating her husband’s pension, had failed to explain why it had refused the applicant’s request to obtain a certificate from the police that was necessary for the correct calculation of the pension. In practice, the protection of the applicant’s rights was made dependent on cooperation between different public authorities.
The second applicant, Andrii Oliinyk, brought proceedings seeking to have a residential lease agreement dated 28 May 2008 declared invalid. The national courts incorrectly interpreted the fact that a settlement agreement had been concluded in relation to another contract dated 5 June 2008 and extended the effect of that settlement to all legal relations between the parties. This deprived the applicant of his right to a fair hearing.
The applications were joined because both concerned an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The Court found that, in both cases, the national courts had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by failing to fulfil their obligation to provide adequate reasons for their decisions and by disregarding key arguments raised by the applicants.
The Court unanimously decided to join the applications lodged by Kryvchenko and Oliinyk, declared them admissible and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of adequate reasoning in the domestic court decisions.
The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation to the applicants.
Key conclusions of the ECtHR in this case:
1. Insufficient reasoning of judicial decisions: the courts failed to provide adequate grounds for their conclusions and did not properly address important arguments raised by the parties.
2. The broader nature of the problem: the ECtHR noted that such violations in Ukraine are not isolated, highlighting the need to improve judicial practice and the relevant legal framework.
The ECtHR judgment in “Kryvchenko and Oliinyk v. Ukraine” serves as another reminder to the Ukrainian legal system of the need to ensure transparency and proper reasoning in judicial decisions and to address all relevant arguments raised by the parties. It emphasises the importance not only of complying with procedural requirements but also of conducting a thorough examination of the merits of each case in order to prevent violations of fundamental human rights.
This judgment highlights the critical importance of respecting the right to a fair trial. The absence of adequate reasoning in judicial decisions not only violates the rights of the parties but also undermines public confidence in the legal system as a whole.
