The ECHR ruled that a complaint filed by a Donetsk resident against Ukraine was inadmissible
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that a complaint filed by a Donetsk resident against Ukraine was inadmissible. The woman had complained about shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which destroyed her apartment.
This was reported by Margarita Sokorenko, the government’s representative to the ECHR, on her Facebook page.
The applicant, a resident of Donetsk, claimed that on August 9, 2014, artillery fire by Ukrainian government forces destroyed the apartment she owned and lived in. As evidence, she provided copies of her passport, a certificate of inheritance, a certificate of ownership, the building registry, a damage report, and photographs.
She complained that she was allegedly unable to exercise her rights because all state institutions in the east, including the courts, had suspended operations and been relocated to territory controlled by the Ukrainian government;
The applicant also complained that she had allegedly been forced to change her place of residence due to the destruction of her property. However, she did not specify where exactly she had moved to and did not provide any evidence of her relocation. Furthermore, the applicant was represented by a lawyer practicing in Moscow.
The ECHR dismissed all complaints on the grounds that domestic legal remedies had not been exhausted (Article 35, §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention).
The Court confirmed that Ukraine had established a legal framework and specialized units capable of investigating shelling incidents similar to the one described in this case.
Furthermore, in the Court’s view, the mobile courts are effective and accessible. The applicant made no attempt to bring her case before the national courts, despite the fact that—as documented—she regularly traveled from Donetsk to territory controlled by the Ukrainian government.
The ECHR judges concluded that the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation cannot be attributed to the state, as it was primarily due to the applicant’s own inaction—her failure to exercise due diligence in her interactions with the authorities.
Source: Margarita Sokorenko
As a reminder, the ECHR raised this issue in the complaint filed by former Cypriot Auditor General Michaelides.
