{"id":967,"date":"2018-02-13T21:01:34","date_gmt":"2018-02-13T21:01:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=967"},"modified":"2023-10-31T19:39:49","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T19:39:49","slug":"tsezar-others-v-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/tsezar-others-v-ukraine\/","title":{"rendered":"Tsezar and others v Ukraine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t

Case No. 73590\/14 et al.
\nJudgment Date: 13 February 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n

The applicants currently reside in Donetsk, outside of the territory controlled by the Ukrainian authorities. They were recipients of social benefits. Due to the conflict, the domestic authorities transferred the jurisdiction of the Donetsk courts to neighbouring regions that were under government control. Subsequently, all social payments in the regions outside of state control were suspended and persons eligible for social payments and affected by the suspension were required to apply for reinstatement for such payments in the territory controlled by the Government.<\/p>\n

Referring to Art. 6(1) (right to a fair trial) and Art. 13 (right to an effective remedy) ECHR, the applicants complained that they had not been able to challenge the suspension of their social benefits since the courts had been relocated outside of the territory in which they resided. They also invoked Art. 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR with regard to the above payments. Finally, they complained of discrimination based on their place of residence (Art. 14, in conjunction with Art. 6 and Art. 1 of Protocol 1).<\/p>\n

Read the full case summary in the Summer 2018 Bulletin.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n