CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juillet 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 154 July 2012 Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine - 760/03 Judgment 26.7.2012 [Section V] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Refusal by the authorities to provide a copy of documents from his file to a prisoner wishing to substantiate his application to the Court: failure to comply with Article   34   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to implement laws in order to ensure that prisoners can have effective access to the necessary documents for substantiating their complaints before the Court   Facts – In April 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery and murder. In the course of the criminal investigations against him, he complained of ill-treatment by the police to various public authorities, but without success. In January 2002 he was convicted of several counts of aggravated robbery, inflicting grievous bodily injuries and murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant’s cassation appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court in July 2002. After lodging his application with the European Court in November 2002, he asked the trial court in April 2004 to provide him with copies of the medical reports drawn up after his examination at the detention facility and of other documents pertaining to the criminal proceedings. The trial court refused on the grounds that it was not its function to provide copies of documents and that there were no funds for such purposes. The applicant’s appeals against that decision were unsuccessful. Law – Article 34: The applicant had lodged his application with the Court after the domestic proceedings against him had been completed. He was denied access to the case file and was not able to make copies of case documents by hand or by other means. The fact that the application had reached the Court did not exclude the possibility that there had been interference with the applicant’s right of individual petition. In these circumstances, Ukraine had failed to comply with its obligation under Article   34 to furnish all necessary facilities to the applicant in order to make possible a proper and effective examination of his application by the Court. Conclusion : failure to comply with Article   34 (unanimously). Article 46: This was the second case, after Naydyon v.   Ukraine ,* in which the Court had found a violation of Article   34 because a prisoner dependent on the authorities was not provided with effective access to documents he needed to substantiate his application before the Court. Similar complaints of interference with the right of individual petition had been raised in a number of other cases against Ukraine currently pending before the Court. Of these, some 23 had been communicated to the Government. The issue thus concerned a systemic problem which called for the implementation of measures of a general character. The problem resulted from the absence of a clear and specific procedure enabling prisoners to obtain copies of case documents, either by making copies themselves or having the authorities do so for them. While there were domestic regulations providing for public access to documents, including court case files, kept by the authorities the national judicial authorities did not consider themselves under an obligation to assist prisoners in obtaining copies. Nor was there any evidence to show that the prison authorities complied with their obligation under the prison regulations to assist prisoners. Accordingly, the Court directed that the respondent State should take adequate legislative and administrative measures without delay to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty had effective access to documents necessary for substantiating their complaints before the Court. The Court further found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3, and no failure to comply with Article 34 as regards the dispatch of the applicant’s letters addressed to the Court. Article 41: EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. * Naydyon v. Ukraine , no.   16474/03, 14   October 2010 , Information Note no.   134 .   © 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