On 9 July 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia — the largest case in the Court’s history in terms of the volume of materials, the duration of the events examined, and the breadth of administrative practices found to be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proceedings cover the period from spring 2014 through 16 September 2022 — the date of the Russian Federation’s final expulsion from the Council of Europe.

During a specialised webinar organised by the Human Rights Institute of the Ukrainian Bar Association, Judge Mykola Gnatovskyy, the ECtHR judge elected in respect of Ukraine, outlined the key aspects of the judgment. He emphasised the case’s significance for the development of international law, the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, and the evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court examined human rights violations accompanying the armed hostilities and Russian aggression against Ukraine not merely from symbolic or political perspectives, but through the lens of the functioning of the regional European system of international law. For the first time, the ECtHR analysed an armed conflict of such magnitude, marked by a complete disregard for international legal norms by one of the parties. The Court found that Russia’s policy, aimed at eliminating Ukraine’s independence, poses a threat to the security of all of Europe (para. 177 of the judgment).

Judge Gnatovskyy underscored that the provisions of the Convention remain applicable even in times of war, in accordance with Article 15 of the ECHR. The ECtHR conducted a thorough analysis of the context of the armed conflict and critically assessed the evidence, enabling it to reach well-founded conclusions regarding the responsibility of the Russian Federation for administrative practices that constituted systemic human rights violations.

The judgment consolidates four inter-State applications: three submitted by Ukraine and one by the Netherlands. It analyses events from 2014 onwards, including the occupation of parts of Ukrainian territory, armed hostilities, and administrative practices in areas not under Ukraine’s control (excluding Crimea, which was addressed in a separate Grand Chamber judgment in an inter-State case adopted in June 2024).

The Court found that the actions of the Russian Federation during the armed conflict were strategic and meticulously planned, thereby precluding the application of the “chaos” doctrine previously articulated in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) to the active hostilities. The Russian Federation pursued a policy aimed at seizing Ukrainian territories and subordinating the local population. As a result, it bears responsibility for ensuring the protection of human rights of individuals affected by this policy.

For the first time, the Court explicitly applied the principles of attribution of state responsibility for the actions of subordinate entities, as established in general international law. In particular, it found that the Russian Federation bears responsibility for the conduct of the so-called “LPR” and “DPR” not only after, but also prior to the full-scale invasion. This entails state responsibility for the actions of de facto organs, as provided under Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

Of particular note is the Court’s approach to the interaction between the European Convention on Human Rights and international humanitarian law: the ECtHR reaffirmed that the Convention remains fully applicable even during wartime. It must be interpreted in harmony with international humanitarian law, and the norms of the latter may be used by the Court to define the scope of human rights in situations of armed conflict.

The judgment contains a detailed analysis of large-scale violations of numerous provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. These include violations of the right to life; the prohibition of torture, including sexual violence; the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation; forced displacement; the prohibition of education in the Ukrainian language; indoctrination of children; violations of freedom of religion and association, among others. These violations were classified as administrative practices attributable to the respondent state.

In the part of the case based on the application submitted by the Netherlands concerning the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, the Court also found violations of the right to life, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, and the right to an effective remedy.

The ECtHR judgment establishes a significant legal and societal precedent capable of countering disinformation and propaganda. As for its broader implications, the Grand Chamber’s decision sets out substantive parameters for the consideration of numerous individual applications related to the armed conflict. Judge Hnatovskyi expressed hope that the majority of such applications will be reviewed within the next two to two and a half years.

Moreover, there is a strong likelihood that the Court’s findings will be used by other international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. While the ECtHR does not have jurisdiction to determine individual criminal responsibility for acts such as genocide or aggression, its conclusions regarding the general context—particularly the respondent state’s plans to destroy Ukraine’s statehood—may serve as important material for proceedings in other international judicial bodies.

As for the matter of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, the timeline for its implementation will depend on Ukraine’s preparedness, the functioning of the Register of Damage, and the establishment of a future compensation mechanism.

In conclusion, Judge Hnatovskyi emphasized that this ruling is a landmark event in the protection of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Europe.