ECHR awarded 900 euros compensation to protesters after the court moved the protest away from Bankova Street

The European Court of Human Rights found that Ukraine violated the principle of legal certainty after a Ukrainian court, when determining the procedure for enforcing its decision, effectively changed its content. The court initially obliged not to obstruct the peaceful assembly near the Presidential Administration, but later restricted the location of the event to the area near fences located more than 100 meters away from the building.

The case "NAYDYONOV AND VEDUTENKO v. UKRAINE" concerned a protest planned by the applicants near the building of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. They sought to draw attention to a criminal case regarding the theft of five vehicles belonging to their company, as they considered the investigation lengthy and ineffective.

The applicants informed the Kyiv City State Administration of their intention to hold the event from June 2 to August 1, 2015, and later extended this period until the end of the year. Subsequently, the applicants were allowed to hold the assembly.

However, servicemen of the State Guard Department of Ukraine positioned themselves between the applicants and the Administration building.

The Kyiv District Administrative Court obliged the State Guard Department of Ukraine not to obstruct the applicants' peaceful assembly near the Presidential Administration building. However, a few days later, the court itself changed the procedure for enforcing this decision. On June 26, 2015, the court stated that the applicants could hold the event near the fence on the approaches to Bankova Street, not directly near the Presidential Administration building.

Findings of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention regarding the principle of legal certainty. The reason was that the Kyiv District Administrative Court, when establishing the procedure for enforcing its own ruling, effectively changed its content.

The ECHR recognized that according to Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the national court had the right on its own initiative to determine the method and procedure for enforcing its decision. However, this authority did not allow it to impose new restrictions that were not contained in the original ruling.

The case concerned the decision of June 17, 2015, by which the court obliged the State Guard Department of Ukraine to remove restrictions on the applicants' right to peaceful assembly near the Presidential Administration building on Bankova Street. Later, on June 26, the court determined that the assembly should be held near the fence located more than 100 meters from this address.

According to the ECHR, there was a significant difference between holding the assembly at Bankova Street and holding it near the fence. The original court decision did not restrict the applicants to holding the assembly only near the fence. Therefore, by establishing the procedure for enforcing the ruling, the Kyiv District Administrative Court effectively added a new restriction and thus changed the essence of its previous decision.

The ECHR also noted that the State Guard Department of Ukraine had the opportunity to appeal the June 17, 2015 decision but did not use it. At the same time, higher courts did not correct the violation of the principle of legal certainty after reviewing the applicants' appeals and cassation complaints.

At the same time, the ECHR did not find a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The court recognized that the restriction of the applicants' right to freedom of peaceful assembly was an interference with this right, but it was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim of preventing riots or crimes. Moreover, the applicants were able to hold assemblies on June 2, 3, and 4, 2015, near the Presidential Administration of Ukraine.

The assemblies aimed to achieve the personal intervention of the President of Ukraine in the criminal case regarding the stolen vehicles, the investigation of which the applicants considered too slow. The ECHR concluded that the specific topic of these assemblies had limited public interest, and the established restriction was not disproportionate.

For the established violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention, the ECHR awarded each applicant 900 euros in compensation for moral damage and 500 euros for legal costs.

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