The Grand Chamber confirmed fair trial standards: monetary compensation from the ECHR is insufficient for full fair satisfaction

 Victory at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is only half the journey. True justice is restored in national courts through the procedure of review under exceptional circumstances. Using the example of the case "Babkinis v. Ukraine," we analyze how defects in reasoning become the key to overturning final decisions.

The adoption of a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Ukraine is a legal fact that triggers the mechanism for reviewing national court decisions under exceptional circumstances.

Since the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is part of national legislation, and the jurisdiction of the ECHR is binding on Ukraine, its decisions form the basis for such review. The purpose of the procedure is not only to establish a violation, but to restore the applicant's position that existed before the rights violation, in accordance with the principle of restitutio in integrum.

How national courts review cases after ECHR decisions

In Ukrainian administrative proceedings, a special procedure for reviewing court decisions under exceptional circumstances is provided, particularly in cases where an international judicial institution establishes a violation of Ukraine's international obligations.

According to the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, such a decision is an unconditional basis for applying to the court with a motion to review the final court act.

This primarily concerns the practice of the ECHR, whose decisions may require the state not only to pay compensation but also to restore violated rights through a retrial.

The procedure is also based on the Law of Ukraine No. 3477-IV "On the Execution of Decisions and Application of the Practice of the ECHR," which provides for both individual measures, including case reviews, and general measures to eliminate systemic violations.

Additionally, a guideline for national courts is Recommendation No. R(2000)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which states that a retrial is necessary if the consequences of the violation cannot be remedied solely by monetary compensation.

Precedent in detail: The case "Babkinis v. Ukraine"

This case demonstrates a typical problem in Ukrainian judiciary — insufficiency of reasoning.

The applicant worked at the State Environmental Inspectorate but due to hostilities in 2014, she relocated to the city of Kherson. The dispute arose over unpaid wages for the so-called "downtime" period from July to November 2014 until the official relocation of the institution to Severodonetsk.

Courts of all instances, from the district to the High Administrative Court, dismissed the claim, citing that the inability of the employee to return from the ATO zone does not constitute "downtime" under the Labor Code. The courts relied on letters from the Ministry of Social Policy, which were of a recommendatory nature.

The applicant complained to the ECHR that national courts, when considering her case, did not properly assess her arguments and did not ensure a fair hearing of the dispute.

The European Court of Human Rights pointed out a significant error in the approach of Ukrainian national courts in applying the temporary procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 595.

The mentioned procedure provided a differentiated approach to the payment of employees of institutions relocated from the combat zone. Specifically, it distinguished two periods:

Before the relocation of the institution — wages were to be paid in full and without additional conditions.

After the relocation of the institution — payment could be made subject to the actual performance of official duties by the employee.

The ECHR concluded that national courts misinterpreted or mechanically applied this approach, failing to consider key guarantees of the right to fair remuneration for work and the principle of legal certainty.

National courts ignored this division and applied the conditions of the second period to the applicant's claims, which related to the first. The ECHR found a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention because the courts failed to provide proper reasoning and did not explain why priority was given to non-binding letters rather than the Government resolution.

The ECHR reiterated that the right to a fair trial includes not only the formal right to have the case heard but also the court's obligation to properly assess the key arguments of the parties. When national courts bypass significant arguments of the applicant or fail to adequately respond to them, it may call into question the quality of the entire proceeding.

This approach of the Court confirms that the standard of Article 6 of the Convention concerns not only the procedure as such but also the substantive persuasiveness of the judicial decision. For Ukraine, this case is another reminder of the importance of reasoning judicial acts and real, not formal, consideration of the parties' arguments.

In a broader sense, it demonstrates that the ECHR carefully considers whether the process was truly adversarial and whether the judicial hearing did not become a purely declarative procedure. It is precisely such cases that form the practical standard of justice quality that Ukrainian courts must take into account in their daily work.

Procedural standards under Article 6 of the Convention

As seen from the ECHR practice, fairness of proceedings depends on the party's ability to genuinely influence the formation of the evidentiary basis. The court must not only accept motions but also evaluate the significance of each piece of evidence and provide convincing reasons when refusing to examine it.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the adversarial principle and equality of arms require a real, not declarative, opportunity to present one's position.

As follows from the decisions in the cases Murtazaliyeva v. Russia and Nevzlin v. Russia, the assessment of a national court's refusal to examine submitted evidence must be made through the prism of the overall fairness of the judicial proceedings. The court must first determine whether the relevant evidence is of substantial importance for resolving the dispute, i.e., whether it is potentially relevant and capable of influencing the establishment of the facts of the case.

In case of refusal to examine it, the national court must provide convincing, sufficient, and logically motivated reasons for such refusal, since formal or declarative explanations do not meet the standards of Article 6 of the Convention. At the same time, the decisive factor is whether such refusal leads to a violation of the overall fairness of the proceedings, in particular whether it deprives the party of a real opportunity to prove its position and whether procedural equality between the parties is maintained.

The case Kraska v. Switzerland is a landmark decision in which the ECHR indicated that courts must respond to significant, not all without exception, arguments of the party, but silence on a key argument may call into question the fairness of the proceedings.

This logic is confirmed by decisions in the cases Kotenko and Others v. Ukraine and Buzescu v. Romania, where the ECHR emphasizes that fairness of proceedings depends not only on the formal admission of parties to the process but also on whether the national court properly assessed key arguments and evidence.

This is especially relevant in cases concerning the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In the absence of specific reasoning, refusal to examine evidence turns the right to a court into a purely formal guarantee.

According to the ECHR approach in the cases Călin v. Romania and Nada v. Switzerland, the legality and proportionality of interference with the procedural rights of a party must be ensured by procedures that genuinely allow challenging evidence and effectively presenting one's position.

Procedural economy alone cannot justify refusal to examine evidence if it deprives a party of the opportunity to verify key factual data or refute the opponent's position. In the absence of proper reasoning and assessment of alternative means of proof, such refusal effectively turns the right to participate in the formation of the evidentiary basis into a formal guarantee.

Consequences for legal practice: the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

Following the review of case No. 820/1945/15 in connection with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court formulated important approaches regarding the consequences of violations established by the international instance.

The main conclusion was that the establishment by the ECHR of a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is grounds for the complete annulment of previously adopted national court decisions in the relevant case.

As a result, the ruling of the court of first instance, as well as the decisions of the appellate and cassation courts, were annulled as adopted in violation of the standards of the Convention.

The case was remanded for a new trial to the court of first instance with mandatory consideration of the legal conclusions formulated by the ECHR.

The Grand Chamber emphasized that payment of fair satisfaction awarded by the ECHR, including 2,100 euros for moral damage, does not replace the state's obligation to restore the violated material right, in this case — the applicant's labor rights.

The case "Babkinis v. Ukraine" and the subsequent position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court demonstrate a shift toward a substantive understanding of justice. Courts are obliged to give priority to special normative acts and cannot substitute them with explanations or letters from authorities, and any deviation from a direct norm must be clearly and thoroughly motivated.

The reasoning of the judicial decision is considered not as a technical element but as a component of the right to a fair trial, and its insufficiency may constitute an independent procedural violation.

The mechanism of review under exceptional circumstances under Article 363 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine is effective only when it is aimed not at a formal retrial but at eliminating the root cause of the violation established by the ECHR. In motions for review, it is advisable to substantiate that the violation established by Strasbourg is decisive for the correct resolution of the dispute, and national review is a tool for the real restoration of violated rights in cases where the international instance did not award full material compensation.

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