The rating of court decisions in 2012 that were most important for the protection of human rights
Human rights activists and experts have released their rating of court decisions in 2012 that were most important for the protection of human rights. The project was coordinated by the Center for Political and Legal Reforms with support from the International Renaissance Foundation’s Rule of Law Program and the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Ukraine.
Topping the list was the resolution of the Kherson District Administrative Court regarding freedom of assembly. The court ruled that the decision of the Kherson City Council on the organization and holding in Kherson of meetings, rallies, marches and demonstrations was illegal and inconsistent with the Constitution.
“This judgment is important in light of the sad practice in our courts of prohibiting peaceful gatherings. In 2012, the authorities applied to the courts to ban more than 400 peaceful gatherings. And, as the analysis by the Center for Political and Legal Reforms of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions has shown, they were successful in almost 90% of cases,” said Tetyana Pechonchyk, the head of the Human Rights Information Center.
Two decisions were tied for second place – the resolution of the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal and the resolution of the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal.
The former concerned discrimination of people with disabilities. The Dnipropetrovsk court sided with wheelchair-bound lawyer Dmytro Zhary and required the State Administration on Medicinal Products to consider revoking the licenses of pharmacies that do not have disabled access. After the media reported on the plaintiff’s victory, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov initiated changes to licensing terms for pharmacies and medical institutions that would require them to guarantee access to people with disabilities.
The second case involved freedom of peaceful assembly. The Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal found illegal the application of the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the organization and holding of meetings, which was in effect until now.
In third place was the decision of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv in which the court upheld that the restriction on criticism of a public person is broader than that of a private person. In its ruling, the court rejected the claim by MP Vadym Kolesnichenko, the co-author of the language law, that another MP must refute his statements that the former is an “agent of the Kremlin” and “real terrorist infringing on the statehood of Ukraine”. Taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression, the local court found no infractions in the harsh remarks about the plaintiff.
Contacts:
Center for Political and Legal Reforms
Roman Kuybida
kuybida@gmail.com
***
The aim of the Rule of Law Program is to support the civil society initiatives directed to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to promote strengthened legal consciousness and public activity at the central and local levels.
