A Few Hours to Prepare for a Hearing Is Not Enough for a Fair Trial: How a Case of Petty Hooliganism Ended Up in the ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in the case "AVRAMYCH v. UKRAINE," concluding that the applicant did not have sufficient time and opportunities to prepare his defense in an administrative offense case considered within a few hours.

Case Circumstances

A Ukrainian citizen born in 1975 applied to the European Court of Human Rights. He complained about a violation of the right to defense in proceedings concerning an administrative offense related to petty hooliganism.

According to the case details, the applicant arrived at the Tyvriv City Court on February 7, 2017. He intended to access the materials of a civil proceeding that did not directly concern him. However, after being refused, the applicant began to react emotionally. As established by national authorities, he shouted obscene words, slammed doors, and disturbed order in the court premises, which was qualified as petty hooliganism. On the same day, around 4:00 p.m., police officers drew up a protocol on the administrative offense. The applicant was placed under administrative arrest.

By approximately 7:00 p.m., the court of first instance ruled to find him guilty and imposed a punishment of six days of administrative arrest with immediate execution.

After serving the administrative penalty, the applicant filed an appeal. The Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

It should be added that according to Article 173 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, petty hooliganism consists of obscene language in public places, offensive harassment of citizens, and other similar actions that disturb public order and citizens' peace. Such actions entail a fine ranging from three to seven non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens, community service from forty to sixty hours, corrective labor from one to two months with a deduction of twenty percent of earnings, or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days.

Consideration of the Case in the ECHR

The applicant believed that his right to a fair trial was violated because the case was considered too quickly and he did not have enough time to prepare his defense.

At the same time, the national authorities denied any violation, arguing that the proceedings concerned a simple administrative offense that did not require complex preparation. It was also noted that the applicant had the opportunity to appeal, which, according to the Government, compensated for any procedural shortcomings of the first instance.

The European Court first recalled the general principles of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, according to which everyone has the right to have sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defense.

The Court noted that in this case, only a few hours passed between the moment the protocol on the administrative offense was drawn up and the court decision was made. Such an extremely short time frame effectively excluded the possibility of full preparation for the defense.

The ECHR also referred to its established practice regarding Ukraine in similar cases, where the Court had already identified systemic problems with ensuring procedural guarantees in cases of administrative offenses considered in an accelerated manner.

The decision emphasized that even if the case is not complex in factual circumstances, this does not exempt the state from the obligation to ensure minimum standards of a fair trial. The applicant must have a real, not formal, opportunity to prepare a defense. The Court also noted that the subsequent appellate review did not remedy the violation, since at the time of its consideration the applicant had already served the imposed administrative penalty in the form of arrest. Thus, the appeal could not restore the violated guarantees.

In view of this, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the applicant's lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare a defense. Additionally, the applicant requested compensation for moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros. However, the Court refused to award it, stating that the very fact of establishing a violation is sufficient just satisfaction.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and on Google News SUD.UA, as well as on our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.