Avenue de l'Europe
Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine 
| 2013
One of the most important judgments against Ukraine was the recent case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, as it touched upon the central issue of the whole system of human rights protection – independence of the judiciary.
Ganna Yudkivska, Ukrainian Judge at the European Court of Human Rights
© Photo Newspaper Cудебно-юридическая газета «Суд инфо»
Oleksandr Volkov was a Supreme Court judge. Members of the High Council of Justice applied to Parliament to have him sacked. Mr Volkov said he had done nothing wrong, and the case against him had been rigged. His legal representative argued that Mr Volkov had been the victim of political corruption, which sought to undermine judicial independence.
Parliament voted for his dismissal, and Mr Volkov was removed from office in 2010.
The European court ruled that the dismissal of Mr Volkov had been biased and manipulated. Neither the High Council of Justice nor the relevant Parliamentary committee had been impartial, and a number of their members had been personally biased against Mr Volkov. During the vote on his dismissal in Parliament, certain members had illegally voted in the place of others who were absent. When the dismissal was reviewed in court, the judges were unable to take an impartial position, properly review the case or take any meaningful action in response to it.
Mr Volkov’s dismissal had breached his right to a fair trial, and his right to private and family life.
The court holds that the respondent State shall secure the applicant’s reinstatement to the post of judge of the Supreme Court at the earliest possible date.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, January 2013
Mr Volkov was reinstated as a Supreme Court judge on 2 February 2015. Following the case, the Ukrainian government has also carried out substantial legislative and institutional reforms in order to improve the independence and impartiality of the judiciary:
The Council of Europe continues to monitor efforts in support of an independent and impartial judiciary in Ukraine.
The European court found that Romania’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor had had no way to legally challenge her dismissal. Also, the government’s decision to dismiss her had violated her free speech because it was mostly in response to her public criticism of controversial legal reforms. Romania then changed the law to protect prosecutors from abusive removal from office.
Ilgar Mammadov was detained after writing a blog post criticising the government. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that his detention was politically motivated. For the first time ever, the Council of Europe launched a special procedure against a member state over Azerbaijan’s response to the judgment. This eventually caused Azerbaijan to release Ilgar and quash his conviction.
Hans Moor was exposed to asbestos during his work in the 1960s and 70s. This gave him cancer, which was diagnosed in 2004. Hans Moor died in 2005, aged 58. Just before his death, Mr Moor had brought a claim for damages against his former employer for failing to take precautions against exposure to asbestos. The claim was continued by his wife and children.
Ukraine
Romania
Azerbaijan
Switzerland