Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas komponentes ietvaros tiesneši Mikola Gnatovskis un Dr. iur. Artūrs Kučs un tiesas vecākais jurists Dr. iur. Mārtiņš Birģelis piedāvās vasaras skolas dalībniekiem sarunu par būtiskiem Eiropas Cilvēktiesību konvencijas principiem, pamatojoties uz šī gada tēmai aktuāliem Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas spriedumiem. Tiesnesis Mikola Gnatovskis sniegs savu komentāru par problēmjautājumiem tiesas Lielās palātas spriedumā Ukraina un Nīderlande pret Krieviju. Tiesnesis Dr. iur. Artūrs Kučs pievērsīsies tiesas spriedumu vārda brīvības un vēlēšanu tiesību analīzei, raksturojot kā ģeopolitiskā situācija un dezinformācijas radītie izaicinājumi ietekmē tiesību tvērumu, dažādu interešu līdzsvarošanu un valsts pienākumus konvencijā ietverto tiesību aizsardzībā. Savukārt Dr. iur. Mārtiņš Birģelis savā lekcijā sniegs gan teorētisku ietvaru, gan praktiskus orientierus apcietinājuma pamatojuma izvērtēšanai, pamatojoties uz ECT praksi. Lektors ilustrēs raksturīgākos trūkumus apcietinājuma lēmumos, gan piedāvās ieteikumus, kā izvērtēt apcietinājuma atbilstību Eiropas Cilvēktiesību konvencijas prasībām.
Dr. iur. Artūra Kuča lekcija fokusēsies uz vārda brīvības, pulcēšanās un vēlēšanu tiesībām: ģeopolitiskā konteksta un dezinformācijas ietekmi uz Eiropas Cilvēktiesību konvencijas aizsardzības tvērumu un valsts pienākumiem.
Vasaras skolas dalībniekus lūdzam iepazīties ar sekojošiem materiāliem:
Borzykh v. Ukraine, pieteikuma nr. 11575/24, ECT lēmums par nepieņemamību, 12.12.2024. Pieejams šeit.
Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia, pieteikumu nr. 2623/16 un 2299/16, ECT spriedums, 10.07.2025. Pieejams šeit.
Bradshaw and Others v. the United Kingdom, pieteikuma nr. 15653/22, ECT spriedums, 22.07.2025. Pieejams šeit.
Pentney, K., Shattock, E., "Disinformation and Democracy on the Docket: Reformulating the Approach to Electoral Disinformation under the ECHR", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2025. Pieejams šeit.
Soneca, V., "Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia and the Principle of Self-Defending Democracy", Verfassungsblog, 2025. Pieejams šeit.
Mikola Gnatovska, PhD, lekcija norisināsies angļu valodā.
This lecture examines the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia as one of the most important inter-State judgments in the history of the Convention system. Rather than treating the judgment only as a catalogue of violations committed during Russia’s war against Ukraine, the lecture will approach it as a major statement on the role of the European Convention on Human Rights in situations of international armed conflict, occupation, proxy warfare and large-scale atrocity.
The lecture will focus on five themes. First, it will explain the factual and procedural background of the case, including the joining of Ukraine’s inter-State applications with the application brought by the Netherlands concerning the downing of flight MH17. Secondly, it will consider the Court’s approach to jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention, including effective control over territory, authority and control over individuals, and the Court’s treatment of kinetic military attacks. Thirdly, it will analyse the judgment’s contribution to the law of State responsibility, especially the attribution to Russia of conduct by separatist armed groups and occupying administrations. Fourthly, it will discuss the Court’s method for establishing administrative practices and dealing with evidence in conditions of occupation, armed conflict and lack of cooperation by the respondent State. Finally, it will consider the relationship between the Convention and international humanitarian law, arguing that the judgment is best understood as an exercise in systemic integration: IHL informs the interpretation of Convention rights in wartime, but does not displace the Convention.
The lecture will conclude by reflecting on the significance and limits of the judgment. It is a landmark of accountability, a legal record of mass violations, and an affirmation that the Convention remains applicable in war. At the same time, it leaves open difficult questions concerning execution, just satisfaction, future individual applications, the interaction between human rights law and the jus ad bellum, and the broader architecture of reparations and accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Vasaras skolas dalībniekus lūdzam iepazīties ar sekojošiem materiāliem:
European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 and 11055/22, judgment of 9 July 2025. Pieejams šeit.
Students should read at least the sections on: factual background; jurisdiction; attribution; administrative practices; Article 2 and MH17; the relationship between the Convention and international humanitarian law; and the operative provisions.
European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16, 43800/14 and 28525/20, decision of 30 November 2022. Pieejams šeit.
Especially important for the admissibility-stage findings on jurisdiction over separatist-held territories and the evidentiary framework.
European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, judgment of 25 June 2024. Pieejams šeit.
Important for understanding the Court’s approach to occupation, effective control, administrative practices and the “lawfulness” of measures based on the wholesale replacement of Ukrainian law by Russian law in Crimea.
European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, decision of 16 December 2020. Pieejams šeit.
Useful for the Court’s finding that Russia exercised effective control over Crimea from 27 February 2014.
European Court of Human Rights, Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], no. 38263/08, judgment of 21 January 2021. Pieejams šeit.
Essential background on the “active phase of hostilities” and “context of chaos” debate, against which Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia should be read.
European Court of Human Rights, Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, judgment of 16 September 2014. Pieejams šeit.
A key judgment on harmonious interpretation of the Convention with international humanitarian law.
European Court of Human Rights, Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, judgment of 7 July 2011. Pieejams šeit.
The leading modern authority on extraterritorial jurisdiction under Article 1.
European Court of Human Rights, Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, judgment of 19 October 2012. Pieejams šeit.
Important for effective control, separatist entities and responsibility for conduct in territories outside the territorial State’s control.
International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, especially Articles 4, 8, 16 and the accompanying commentaries. Pieejams šeit.
Particularly relevant to the Court’s reasoning on attribution and de facto organs.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31 § 3(c). Pieejams šeit.
The textual basis for systemic integration and harmonious interpretation with other relevant rules of international law.
Recommended academic and practitioner commentary:
Marko Milanovic, “The European Court’s Merits Judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia: As Good as It Gets (Almost)”, EJIL: Talk!, 10 July 2025. Pieejams šeit.
A useful early assessment of the judgment’s strengths and unresolved questions.
Isabelle Risini, “Beyond the Fog of War: On the ECtHR’s Ukraine, The Netherlands v. Russia Judgment on the Merits”, Verfassungsblog, 12 July 2025. Pieejams šeit.
Particularly helpful on the judgment’s importance for the relationship between the Convention and IHL.
Strasbourg Observers, “The Judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia: A ‘Nicaragua Moment’ for the ECtHR?”, 23 July 2025. Pieejams šeit.
Useful for discussion of jurisdiction, systemic significance and the judgment’s place in the broader history of international adjudication.
Giorgi Nakashidze, “Not Afraid of International Humanitarian Law Anymore: The European Court of Human Rights after Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia”, Strasbourg Observers, 9 September 2025. Pieejams šeit.
Recommended for the IHL part of the lecture.
ECtHR, Guide on Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Obligation to respect human rights – Concepts of “jurisdiction” and imputability. Pieejams šeit.
Useful as a student reference tool, but should be read critically and alongside the primary judgments.
Dr. iur. Mārtiņš Birģelis lekcijā aplūkos ECT atziņas par apcietinājuma pamatojumu.
Vasaras skolas dalībniekus lūdzam iepazīties ar sekojošiem materiāliem:
Bluks Savickis v. Latvia, no. 44570/19, 13 June 2024. Pieejams šeit.
Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, 28 November 2017. Pieejams šeit.
Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016. Pieejams šeit.
Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012. Pieejams šeit.
Kā arī tiesu prakses apkopojums par ECK 5. pantu. Pieejams šeit.
