Vyerentsov v. Ukraine - 20372/11 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 474 (11 April 2013)

Vyerentsov v. Ukraine - 20372/11 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 474 (11 April 2013)

The applicant's arrest and detention were not prescribed by law due to the absence of clear and foreseeable domestic legislation regulating the procedure for holding peaceful demonstrations. The punishment for breaching a non-existent procedure was incompatible with Article 7. The applicant's right to a fair trial was violated due to lack of time to prepare a defence, denial of legal representation, and inadequate reasoning by the domestic courts.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 474
Parties
Applicant: Vyerentsov; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
violations of Articles 11, 7, and 6 found unanimously
Legal Topics
Freedom of Assembly, Administrative Detention, Legislative Clarity, Right to Fair Trial
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Freedom of Assembly Administrative Detention Legislative Clarity Right to Fair Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vyerentsov

Applicant

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's administrative arrest for breach of procedure for holding a demonstration violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly)
  2. 2 Whether the lack of clear domestic legislation on the procedure for holding demonstrations violated Article 7 (no punishment without law)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6 was violated

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's arrest and detention were not prescribed by law due to the absence of clear and foreseeable domestic legislation regulating the procedure for holding peaceful demonstrations. The punishment for breaching a non-existent procedure was incompatible with Article 7. The applicant's right to a fair trial was violated due to lack of time to prepare a defence, denial of legal representation, and inadequate reasoning by the domestic courts.

Court Disposition

violations of Articles 11, 7, and 6 found unanimously

Orders

  • Respondent State required to implement reforms in legislation and administrative practice regarding procedure for holding peaceful demonstrations
  • Award of EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant