Fake
Russian propaganda says: The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine government responsible for the deaths in Odesa in May 2014.
Fact
- The State of Ukraine was not blamed or held responsible for the events that occurred:
... They (Editor’s note: the applicants - survivors and relatives of “pro-Euromaidan” and “anti-Euromaidan” activists) complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State had failed to protect their lives or those of their relatives and that there had been no effective domestic investigation into the matter.
- Ukraine will have to pay compensation to the applicants — including both "pro-Euromaidan" and "anti-Euromaidan" activists and their relatives — for failing to prevent the tragedy.
Source: Judgment
Failure to prevent a tragedy
Police department failure
The Courts notes about deputy head of the regional police and local police being one the reasons, if not the main one, for the wave of violence in retaliation:
[...] In the Court’s opinion, the failure of the police to make any real attempt to stop the initial wave of violence against the pro-unity protesters, together with clear indications of possible collusion between the police and anti-Maidan activists, was one of the reasons, if not the main one, for the wave of violence in retaliation.[...]
The Court also noted that the deputy head of the regional police who had been directly involved in the decision-making process before and during the events and who had fled to Russia afterwards, had, at the very least, been providing support to the anti-Maidan movement in Odesa, and perhaps conspiring with anti-Maidan activists in organising mass disorder. The risk of violent clashes might have stemmed, amongst other things, from the possible collusion between the police and anti-Maidan activists. The ability of the newly formed Ukrainian government to manage that risk was therefore considerably limited.
[...]the Government admitted that the police authorities had ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs and had prepared for an ordinary football match. No efforts whatsoever had been made to send in police reinforcements. Nor had there been any meaningful attempt to prevent the clashes.
Source: Press Release (document is available only in PDF format)
Fire department failure
[...]Despite numerous calls to the fire brigade, which was less than 1 km away, the fire service regional head instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order. At 7.45 p.m., a fire broke out in the Trade Union Building. The fire extinguishers in the building did not work. The police called the fire brigade, to no avail. [...]The regional head of the fire service finally ordered fire engines to be sent to the scene. Fire ladders were used to rescue people from the upper-floor windows. Firefighters entered the building at around 8.30 p.m. and put out the fire.
Source: Press Release (document is available only in PDF format)
TL;DR (More details)
The Judgment
Introduction
The applications concern the mass disorder and fire in Odesa on 2 May 2014, which involved heavy casualties. The applicants are the next of kin of some of those who lost their lives, as well as three survivors of the fire (see the table in Appendix I to this judgment). They complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State had failed to protect their lives or those of their relatives and that there had been no effective domestic investigation into the matter. Ms Vyacheslavova (application no. 39553/16) also complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the delay in handing over her father’s body for burial.
Result
THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
- Decides to join the applications;
- Decides to join the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies on account of the ongoing criminal proceedings to the merits of the applicants’ complaint under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention and, having examined it, dismisses it;
- Declares all the applicants’ complaints under Article 2 of the Convention and Ms Vyacheslavova’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (application no. 39553/16) admissible;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention raised by Ms Berezovska (application no. 52632/16), Ms Olena Brygar (application no. 53467/16), Mr Dmitriyev, Ms Kovriga, Ms Lukas, Ms Pidorich and Ms Radzykhovska (application no. 59339/17), as well as Ms Gorenko (application no. 76896/17);
- Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the respondent State’s failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of it in order to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014 and to stop that violence after its outbreak, as well as its failure to ensure timely rescue measures for those trapped in the fire in the Trade Union Building;
-
Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention;
-
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Ms Vyacheslavova (application no. 39553/16);
-
Holds
-
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
-
(i) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the following amounts plus any tax that may be chargeable:
-
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to Ms Olena Brygar (application no. 53467/16) and Ms Lyudmyla Brygar (application no. 59339/17) jointly;
-
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to Mr Ivanov and Ms Ivanova (application no. 59531/17) jointly;
-
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to Ms Gorenko, Mr Vladyslav Yavorskyy, Mr Viktor Yavorskyy and Ms Yavorska (application no. 76896/17) jointly;
-
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to Ms Marikoda and Mr Milev (application no. 47092/18) jointly;
-
EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros) to Mr Didenko, Mr Dmitriyev and Mr Gerasymov (application no. 59339/17) each;
-
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to each of the following applicants: Ms Babushkina, Ms Kovriga, Ms Lukas, Ms Mishyna, Mr Negaturov, Mr Petrov, Ms Pidorich, Ms Radzykhovska and Ms Yakhlakova (application no. 59339/17); Ms Biryukova (application no. 59531/17); Ms Petrova and Ms Zhulkova (application no. 76896/17); as well as Ms Nikitenko (application no. 47092/18); and
-
EUR 17,000 (seventeen thousand euros) to Ms Vyacheslavova (application no. 39553/16);
-
-
(ii) in respect of costs and expenses, the following amounts plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants:
-
EUR 6,200 (six thousand two hundred euros) to Ms Vyacheslavova (application no. 39553/16), to be paid into the bank account of Mr Tarakhkalo; and
-
EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros) to the applicants in applications nos. 59339/17, 59531/17, 76896/17 and 47092/18 jointly, to be paid directly into the bank account of the Stichting Justice Initiative;
-
-
-
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
-
-
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Source: CASE OF VYACHESLAVOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Press Release
Some condenced information from Press Release:
In analysing the origin of the risk of violence and the extent to which it was susceptible to mitigation, the Court took note of the Ukrainian government’s allegation about the possible threat of destabilisation of the situation in the southern regions of Ukraine in general and in Odesa in particular, coming from the Russian Federation. In view of the considerable strategic value of Odesa and the established heavy involvement of the Russian Federation in the events in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the Court considered that that allegation was not devoid of any basis.
The Court also noted that the deputy head of the regional police who had been directly involved in the decision-making process before and during the events and who had fled to Russia afterwards, had, at the very least, been providing support to the anti-Maidan movement in Odesa, and perhaps conspiring with anti-Maidan activists in organising mass disorder. The risk of violent clashes might have stemmed, amongst other things, from the possible collusion between the police and anti-Maidan activists. The ability of the newly formed Ukrainian government to manage that risk was therefore considerably limited.
[...] The Government admitted that the police authorities had ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs and had prepared for an ordinary football match. No efforts whatsoever had been made to send in police reinforcements. Nor had there been any meaningful attempt to prevent the clashes.
[...] In the Court’s opinion, the failure of the police to make any real attempt to stop the initial wave of violence against the pro-unity protesters, together with clear indications of possible collusion between the police and anti-Maidan activists, was one of the reasons, if not the main one, for the wave of violence in retaliation.[...]
[...] The Court concluded that the relevant authorities had not done everything they reasonably could to prevent the violence, to stop that violence after its outbreak, and to ensure timely rescue measures for those trapped in the fire in the Trade Union Building. There had therefore been violations of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.
[...] The Court concluded that the relevant authorities had failed to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events in Odesa on 2 May 2014. There had therefore been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.