Sparks fly in the Ukraine

4 July 2013 by

electrical-discharge-in-multiple-sparks-from-prongs-pins-of-uk-electric-mains-plug-3-prong-fuse-carrier-in-base-rescan-rescan-rescan-ajhdKirovogradoblenergo, Pat v Ukraine (Application no. 35088/07) 27 June 2013 – read judgment 

Shortly after the break up of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine introduced an interesting piece of legislation called the Status of Judges Act.

Being a judge behind the Iron Curtain couldn’t have been much fun, and rendering the profession more attractive once society had opened up somewhat was probably one of the more pressing challenges facing the new regime. One of the chief provisions in the SoJA was to spare members of the judiciary from paying half their electricity bills. What this tells us about the status of judges before and shortly after the dissolution of communism is itself an interesting subject, but outside the scope of this post.

Background

When Judge Z failed to pay his bills, the applicant company, a privately owned electricity supplier, cut him off. Litigation ensued, with a final court ruling that by cutting off the electricity in Judge Z.’s apartment, the applicant company had breached “the judge’s immunity and inviolability of his residence” and that judges’ privileges should not depend on availability of “budget financing”.

The electricity company complained before Strasbourg that this 50% judicial discount should have been reimbursed by the state, and that its failure to do so breached its right to enjoyment of its possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  of  the Convention.

Curiously enough, neither party made any submissions on the substantive part of this case. Instead, they invested all their energy in the preliminaries, which means that most of this very short judgment is devoted to admissibility arguments. Nevertheless the Court was clearly intrigued by the merits and sought to give the central argument the prominence it deserved. It summarised the position thus:

the applicant company was obliged to supply electricity, which appears to be its main business activity, to a certain category of users (judges) with a 50% reduction. This reduction was set out in a legal provision by way of a privilege granted by the State to a certain category of its agent….the Judges Status Act unconditionally provided for a 50% reduction in electricity payments for judges. … Consequently, the applicant company was obliged to provide electricity free of charge to the above category of its clients.[italics added]

With that last sentence, the Court made clear its conclusion that such an obligation constituted an interference with the applicant company’s possessions.

The Court’s judgment

Having found that A1P1 was engaged, it was a short logical step to finding a violation. The domestic courts had effectively washed their hands of the matter when they found that no state budget had been put aside for making up the shortfall in the electricity suppliers’ expenses. Sparing the judiciary half their electricity costs was a matter for the government, the reasoning went, and so was the provision of financing for the unpaid part of the judges’ utilities bills. The State Budget was no business of theirs.

Strasbourg was having none of this, and out of this somewhat unpromising dispute it drew this resounding conclusion:

The Court considers that that situation – where the applicant company was not able to pursue half of the debt owed to it because of the absence of clear and foreseeable law on the matter – amounts to an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions which had no basis in law.

That said, on the matter of damages the failure of the parties to engage with the merits of the case did them no favours. The applicant company had failed to advance any evidence for its claim for nearly four thousand Euros of pecuniary damages, so the Court awarded it with the princely sum of €95.67 for the expenses of the first set of domestic court hearings.

A disappointment perhaps for the parties concerned, but a principled approach to the rule of law. This is after all what the Strasbourg Court is for, however dishevelled the submissions and insignificant the losses involved.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

 

Related posts:

3 comments


  1. Will T says:

    Shocking.

    (I’ll get my coat)

  2. Roger says:

    Is this a fair judgement? I do not think so.

  3. John Allman says:

    I have often thought that this is an excellent blog for those who want to keep up-to-date on current affairs.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: