CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 décembre 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202 December 2016 Chernetskiy v. Ukraine - 44316/07 Judgment 8.12.2016 [Section V] Article 12 Marry Undue delays in providing prisoner with divorce certificate required for remarriage: violation Facts – The applicant complained to the Court under Article   12 of the Convention that between 2005 and 2008 he had been prevented from remarrying, as he was serving a fifteen-year prison sentence and did not have permission to attend the civil-status registry to obtain a divorce certificate following the dissolution of his previous marriage. Following the introduction of new legislation, the applicant was provided with a divorce certificate in prison in February 2009. Law – Article 12: The Court reiterated that personal liberty was not a necessary pre-condition for the exercise of the right to marry. The fact that imprisonment deprives a person of his liberty and also, unavoidably or by implication, of some civil rights and privileges did not mean that persons in detention could not, or only very exceptionally, exercise their right to marry. Further, although a right to divorce could not be derived from Article   12, if national legislation allowed divorce, it secured for divorced persons the right to remarry without unreasonable restrictions. The applicant had been unable to marry his new female partner between February 2005 and October 2008 because the authorities were unable to finalise the registration of his divorce and provide him with the divorce certificate in prison. That restriction on the applicant’s right to remarry was considerable in duration having continued for more than three years and seven months. It was further aggravated by the fact that, until the new marriage was registered, the applicant was not entitled to long private meetings with his partner but only to short (four-hour) meetings in the presence of a prison officer. In the circumstances, the restriction had been unjustified and had impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right to marry and found a family. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Jaremowicz v.   Poland , 24023/03 , and Frasik v.   Poland , 22933/02 , judgments of 5   January 2010 summarised in Information Note   126 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes