ECtHR, the rule of law, and legal texts: key themes of the Summer Academy of International Law

Education is the foundation for the development of any nation. It shapes not only professional skills but also worldview, values and culture. Today, our country is fighting for independence and its European integration choice. We stand in defence of the key values on which the European Union was founded. These are freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights and human dignity. In addition, our European integration choice is not so much about changing legislation as it is about changing the mindset of lawyers. And it is through education that we can bring up future lawyers who will have these values as the main guideline in their work.

This opinion was expressed by President of the Supreme Court Stanislav Kravchenko during the opening of the Third Summer Academy of International Law.

The President of the Supreme Court thanked the OSCE Support Programme for Ukraine within the framework of the project "Assisting the Supreme Court and higher courts in implementing judicial reform and ensuring access to justice in times of war", the Ukrainian Association of International Law and the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine for organising and supporting this event, which is an important platform for discussing key issues of international law, and for their ongoing contribution to the education of young Ukrainian lawyers.

Stanislav Kravchenko also noted that the Ukrainian judiciary has significant experience in studying and applying the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and recently has been focusing considerable efforts on analysing the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of applying national legislation.

This year's programme of the Summer Academy of International Law is dedicated to the issues of international justice, interaction between international and national law, international humanitarian law, EU sanctions policy, digital rights, and the activities of the future Special International Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine - the most relevant topics in today's realities. The emphasis on topical issues is very important, as a lot has changed in the year since the Second Summer Academy. In particular, Ukraine has ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and signed an agreement with the Council of Europe on the establishment of a Special International Tribunal.

"This is a significant step in the development of international law and an effective mechanism that, even if it cannot completely prevent the unleashing of aggressive wars in the future, will at least ensure a proper legal assessment of the actions of the aggressor state from the standpoint of international law," the SC President noted.

Dmytro Hudyma, judge of the Supreme Court in the Civil Cassation Court, spoke about the role of the Supreme Court in the enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine at the lecture "Taking additional individual measures to enforce judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: the experience of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court".

The lecturer noted that in case the ECtHR finds that Ukraine has violated the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, general and individual measures are provided for the enforcement of the Court's judgment. The former do not relate to a specific applicant, they are intended to eliminate the systemic problems that led to the violation of the Convention rights. These include, for example, bringing legislation into line with the requirements of the Convention, as well as changing judicial or administrative practice.

The main individual measure is compensation to the applicant for the damage caused by the violation of his or her rights. Additional measures are those that make it possible to restore, as far as possible, the applicant's previous legal status before the violation. Such restoration may take place, in particular, by way of a repeated court review, including the reopening of proceedings. In exceptional cases, the ECtHR explicitly indicates the additional individual measures that the state must take.

Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states “On the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” provides that re-examination should be applied in particular when the injured party continues to suffer negative consequences from a domestic decision (in cases where just satisfaction was not an adequate remedy and where the situation cannot be remedied otherwise than through re-examination or reopening of the proceedings); or when the judgment of the ECtHR leads to the conclusion that the challenged national court decision is contrary to the Convention, or when the violation found stems from serious procedural defects or provisions that cast grave doubt on the outcome of the domestic proceedings.

The judge noted that although the provisions of the Recommendation are soft law (not mandatory), the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, starting in 2018, has been strictly guided by them (see, for example, the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 7 February 2018 in case No. 9101/94335/2012, of 20 February 2018 in case No. 775/15/15-к, of 27 February 2018 in case No. 756/5578/15-к).

The speaker also drew attention to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 28 March 2018 in case No. 2-428/11. It concludes that the review of court decisions cannot be applied in cases where the violations of international obligations by Ukraine established by the ECtHR: should be eliminated only by taking general measures; do not concern the person who applied for review of court decisions; do not concern the case in which the application for review of the court decision was filed; concern only the duration of the case or the duration of non-enforcement of court decisions made in it. In subsequent cases, the SC GC followed these conclusions.

The lecturer also highlighted the issue of the application of the 10-year term established in Article 424 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine for reviewing decisions of national courts after the ECtHR has established a violation of the Convention. He cited cases in which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court did not apply such a preclusive term and created the prerequisites for amendments to the procedural laws in March 2025 (see the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 7 July 2021 in case No. 2-a-256/08 on the execution of the ECHR judgment in the case of Goryaynova v. Ukraine and of 23 November 2022 in case No. 2318/1249/2012 on the execution of the ECHR judgment in the case of Zhvavyy v. Ukraine).

The presentation is available at the following link: https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezentacii_2025/Prezent_Vhittya_dod_zah_ind_har_ESPL_15_07_25.pdf.

The lecture is available at – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlYqIj6fc7w.

In addition, Dmytro Hudyma delivered a lecture and conducted practical exercises on the topic "Proper structuring of a legal text as one of the indicators of its quality". In particular, he addressed the question of what a quality legal text is and what its structure should be. He emphasised that such a text should be written in words that are understandable to the addressee, i.e. the text should be adapted for a potential reader.

The judge noted that there are often procedural documents that are overloaded with unnecessary information, which only complicates the perception of the text. He also drew attention to the fact that the design of a document is important for its perception. 

The lecturer examined two principles for proper presentation of information in legal texts (“context precedes details” and “conclusion (essence) precedes reasoning”), emphasizing the necessity of structuring such texts around key issues and writing an introduction (summary) for multi-page documents. He recommended preparing legal texts following the CREAC framework: after providing the context and conclusion (C), cite the relevant legal regulations (R) and the Supreme Court’s practice in applying them (E); next, present the facts (circumstances) of the case and their connection to the cited provisions and case law (A); finally, restate the conclusion, i.e., the essence (C).

The presentation is available at the following link – https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezentacii_2025/Prezent_Stryktyr_tekst_18_07_2025.pdf.

In his speech on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, Rasim Babanly, First Deputy Chief of Staff - Head of the Department for Analytical and Legal Work of the Supreme Court, drew attention, in particular, to the mechanism of submitting an advisory request to the ECtHR under Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Its essence lies in the fact that in the event of fundamental issues relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined by the Convention or its Protocols arising in a case considered by the highest court of a Council of Europe member state, such court may apply to the ECtHR with an advisory request. If the ECtHR sees grounds for considering such a request, it will provide an advisory opinion on it, which will be of a recommendatory nature.

"In general, this Protocol is a sign of the fundamental policy of subsidiarity of the European Court of Human Rights, as the ECtHR always points out that its role is auxiliary in the Council of Europe. The main role in the application of the Convention, the Court's case law and, most importantly, the observance of human rights belongs to national courts," said Rasim Babanly.

He also mentioned the recent launch of the Ukrainian version of the ECtHR Knowledge Exchange Platform, a useful analytical resource that contains constantly updated case law guides on each of the Convention's articles, cross-cutting themes and key issues, which provide a broad and clear panorama of how a particular legal issue is resolved in the ECtHR case law.

In his presentation, Rasim Babanly highlighted some of the ECtHR judgments delivered in 2025, in particular, in the cases of:

- CANNAVACCIUOLO and OTHERS v. Italy, in which the ECtHR found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (right to life), which consisted of systematic long-term pollution in the region due to illegal disposal, dumping or uncontrolled abandonment of hazardous, special and urban waste;

- SEVERIN v. Romania, which raised the issue of provocation of a crime by the media;

- CAVCA v. the Republic of Moldova, which concerned the use of materials of covert investigative (detective) actions in bringing a person to disciplinary responsibility;

- TOTH AND CRIȘAN v. Romania, in which the ECtHR found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) in dismissing a defamation claim filed by police officers against a private individual for his Facebook post containing the name of one of the police officers and their photo taken on the street while performing their duties;

- SAHINER v. Austria, in which the ECtHR concluded that the state's refusal to allow a name change was not an interference with the right to privacy.

The presentation is available at the following link: https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezentacii_2025/Prezent_Oglyad_rish_ESPL_2025.pdf.

The lecture is available at – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmd5PYqB4L8.

The Third Summer Academy of International Law was organised by the OSCE Support Programme for Ukraine, the Supreme Court with the support of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Association of International Law.

The event, which took place on 13-20 July 2025, focused on international justice, the interaction of international and national law, international humanitarian law, international investment law, and also included a discussion of legal aspects of European integration processes.