ECONOMIC ASPECT OF CRIMINAL LAW COUNTERACTION TO JUSTIFICATION OF ARMED AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE: RISKS FOR THE STATE BUDGET IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Research subject. The scientific article analyses the economic aspect of criminal law enforcement in the context of the Russian Federation's armed aggression against Ukraine and associated actions. It examines the potential financial implications for the Ukrainian state budget in relation to the settlement of compensation claims arising from violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention). The criminal law is employed to combat justification, as well as to recognise the legitimacy of the denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the glorification of its participants. This is achieved through the application of Art. 4362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (henceforth – CCU). In this regard, the objective of the present study is to predict the potential financial compensation that may be granted by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECHR) in such cases, and the ensuing financial implications for the state budget of Ukraine, which will assume the financial responsibility for the relevant expenditures. In order to achieve this objective, the compliance of Art. 4362 of the CCU by the provisions of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 10 of the Convention and the practice of the ECHR was checked. Мaterials and methods. The empirical basis of the study was as follows: (1) statistical data on Ukraine's participation as a defendant in the ECHR and the expenses incurred by it for the compensation of damages in 2019-2023; (2) approximately 900 verdicts of Ukrainian courts under Article 4362 of the Criminal Code; (3) the survey results of 4015 law enforcement officers of Ukraine on countering the glorification of the Russian armed aggression in Ukraine; (4) the survey results of 16 Ukrainian judges on countering the glorification of the Russian armed aggression in Ukraine; (5) 46 ECHR judgments. The following methodological approaches were employed: dialectical, inductive and deductive reasoning, analysis and synthesis, and economic analysis. Results. It has been determined that the criminal law provisions stipulated in Article 4362 of the CCU, by virtue of their subject matter and nature, give rise to the potential for restrictions on the rights to privacy (Article 8), freedom of speech and expression (Article 10), and, in a indirect capacity, the prohibition of torture (Article 3) and the liberty and security of the person (Article 5) as guaranteed by the Convention. Consequently, this may result in a negative economic effect, manifesting as potential expenditures from the state budget for the purpose of compensating individuals who have been subjected to violations of the aforementioned Convention provisions. Based on the average amount of compensation in cases against Ukraine of 13,190.8 EUR and the number of convictions under Article 4362 of the CCU, as well as taking into account the factors that may affect the number of applications to the ECHR by persons convicted under this Article, an approximate total amount of possible satisfaction was calculated in the range of 264,000 EUR - 923,000 EUR. At the same time, this amount could reach up to 18 million EUR, assuming that all convicted persons bring an action.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
economic losses, state budget, price of compensation, justification, recognition of legitimacy, denial of armed aggression, glorification of participants in armed aggression, criminal liability, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law of the European Court of Human Rights
A and Others v. United Kingdom (2009). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 3455/05. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91403
Abakina-Pilyavska, L. M. (2023). Glorification as a criminal-legal phenomenon: theory and practice. Legal Novels, (20), 212–216. https://doi.org/10.32782/ln.2023.20.29
Agbor, A. (2024). Language as a tool of divisive politics: Perspectives on foreign nationals in South Africa. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 27. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15552
Aksoy v. Turkey (1996). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 21987/93. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-58003
Alkiviadou, N. (2024). Speech that Isn’t Mine: Obligations Under the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(1), 77–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10069-0
Babenko, A. M., & Karchevskyi, M. V. (2023). Glorification: historical, international and domestic socio-legal dimension. Juridical scientific and electronic journal, (10), 713–717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2023-10/173
Baranowski v. Poland (2000). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 28358/95. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58525
Barber, A. (2023). Freedom of expression meets deepfakes. Synthese, 202(2), Article 40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04266-4
Batyrgareieva, V. S. (2022). To a criminological analysis of justification, recognition as legitimate or denial of armed aggression of the Russian Federation and glorification of its participants as a new challenge to the security of the information space of Ukraine. Information AND Law, 4(43), 37–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2022.4(43).269976
Bettinson, V., & Dingwall, G. (2013). Challenging the ongoing injustice of imprisonment for public protection: James, wells and lee v the united kingdom. Modern Law Review, 76(6), 1094–1105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12041
Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom (1993). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 14553/89. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57819
Burghartz v. Switzerland (1994). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 16213/90. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57865
Buyse, A. (2014). Dangerous expressions: The ECHR, violence and free speech. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 63(2), 491–503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589314000104
Cannie, H., & Voorhoof, D. (2011). The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression in the European Human Rights Convention: An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(1), 54–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016934411102900105
Caruso, С. (2017). L'hate speech a Strasburgo: il pluralismo militante del sistema convenzionale. Quaderni costituzionali, 37(4), 963–984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1439/88162
Ceylan v. Turkey (1999). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 23556/94. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58270
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2019). Reading allowed: 13th Annual Report of the Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-2019/16809ec315
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2020). Reading allowed: 14th Annual Report of the Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/2020-cm-annual-report-fra/1680a1f4e9
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2021). Reading allowed: 15th Annual Report of the Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/2021-annual-report/1680a9c848
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2022). Reading allowed: 16th Annual Report of the Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-2022/1680aad12f
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2023). Reading allowed: 17th Annual Report of the Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-2023/1680af6e81
Copland v. the United Kingdom (2007). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 62617/00. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-79996
Council of Europe. (1950, November 4). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680063765
Council of Europe. (2022, February 28). Note verbale No. 31011/32-017-3 from the Permanent Representation of Ukraine to the Council of Europe. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680a5b0b0
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Reservations and declarations for Treaty No. 005 - Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (ETS No. 005). Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=declarations-by-treaty&numSte=005&codeNature=10&codePays=U
Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania (2004). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 33348/96. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-67816
Cyprys v. Turkey (1976). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 6780/74; 6950/75. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-104211&filename=CYPRUS%20v.%20TURKEY.pdf.
Dink v. Turkey (2010). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 2668/07. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-100383
Edwards, R. A. (2020). Police powers and Article 5 ECTHR: Time for a new approach to the interpretation of the right to liberty. Liverpool Law Review, 41(3), 331–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-020-09255-y
Fernando, Z. J., Pujiyono, Rozah, U., & Rochaeti, N. (2022). The freedom of expression in Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2103944
Fikfak, V. (2018). Changing State Behaviour: Damages before the European Court of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 29(4), 1091–1125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy064
Fikfak, V. (2020). Non-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it’s all about the state. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(2), 335–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156520000035.
Friedl v. Austria (1994). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 15225/89. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57917
Furramani, E., & Hoti, P. G. (2022). Proportionality: A principle to be Re-evaluated in Albanian criminal law. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(4), 311-323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2022-0118
Gelber, K. (2024). Free speech, religious freedom and vilification in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 59(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2023.2283008
Greece v. United Kingdom (1956). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 176/56. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-142534
Halford v. the United Kingdom (1997). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 20605/92. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58039
Handyside v. the United Kingdom (1976). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 5493/72. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499
Ichin and Others v. Ukraine (2010). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 28189/04, 28192/04. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-102362
Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria (2008). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 65755/01. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-86449
Ireland v. the United Kingdom (1978). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 5310/71. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57506
Jersild v. Denmark (1994). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 15890/89. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-57891
Keyaerts, K. (2019). Ben Faiza v France: Use of cell site location information by police is acceptable interference with right to privacy. European Data Protection Law Review, 5(1), 120-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/1/19
Khavroniuk, M. I. (2022). Criminal liability for justifying Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine. Available at: https://pravo.org.ua/blogs/vypravdovuvannya-zbrojnoyi-agresiyi-rf-proty-ukrayiny-kryminalna-vidpovidalnist/
Klass and Others v. Germany (1978). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 5029/71. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57510
Lach, A. (2021). Preventive arrest in criminal procedure and police law in light of Article 5 of the ECTHR. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 7(3), 1597–1630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22197/RBDPP.V7I3.609
Lawless v. Ireland (№ 3) (1961). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 332/57. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57518
Lehner, A. (2012). Prison sentence – Delay of deferral of enforcement without reasoning as a violation of Article 5 ECTHR. ICL Journal, 6(2), 294–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2012-0208
Makovii, V., Kuznichenko, O., & Budyachenko, O. (2022). Status and prospects of the execution of judgments of the european court of human rights in Ukraine. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 8(3), 115–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-3-115-124
Malone v. the United Kingdom (1985). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 8691/79. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57532
Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden (1992). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 12963/87. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57748
Martufi, A., & Peristeridou, C. (2020). The purposes of pre-trial detention and the quest for alternatives. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28(2), 153–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10002
Mavronicola, N. (2024). Facilitating (further) inhumanity: On the prospect of losing Article 3 ECTHR, a vital guarantee for the under-protected. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 5(1), 97–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10081
Mchangama, J., & Alkiviadou, N. (2021). Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights: Whatever Happened to the Right to Offend, Shock or Disturb? Human Rights Law Review, 21(4), 1008–1042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngab015
Mikulic v. Croatia (2002). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 53176/99. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-60035
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Available at: https://eet.pixel-online.org/files/etranslation/original/Mill,%20On%20Liberty.pdf
Movchan, R. О. (2022). Criminal law novel about justifying the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine (article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine): law enforcement and law-making problems. Scientific and informational bulletin of Ivano-Frankivsk University of Law named after King Danylo Halytskyi, 13(25), 197–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33098/2078-6670.2022.13.25.197-204
Netherlands v. Greece (1969). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 3344/67. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167795
Niemietz v. Germany (1992). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 13710/88. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57887
Norway v. Greece (1969). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 3322/67. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167795
Oberschlick v. Austria (1991). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 11662/85. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-57716
Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom (1991). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 13585/88. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57705
Office of the Prosecutor General. (n. d.). On registered criminal offenses and the results of their pre-trial investigation. Available at: https://gp.gov.ua/ua/posts/pro-zareyestrovani-kriminalni-pravoporushennya-ta-rezultati-yih-dosudovogo-rozsliduvannya-2
Oleynikov, D. O., & Serdechna, A. Y. (2023). Scientific and practical analysis of the terms used in the disposition of Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 2(74), 110–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2022.74.52
Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (1994). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 13470/87. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155981.
Pentney, K. (2024). The Right of Access to ‘Reliable’ Information Under Article 10 ECtHR: From Meagre Beginnings to New Frontiers. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 5(2), 230–267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10093.
Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finland (2005). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 50882/99. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70283
Radutnyi O. E. (2022). Public appeals and objections as forms of information collaboration activities under the Criminal Сode of Ukraine. Information and Law, 2(41), 99–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2022.2(41).270372
Roper, S. D. (2017). Compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights: Testing Competing Theoretical Perspectives with Post-Communist Countries. East European Quarterly, 45(3-4), 123–141. Available at: https://politicalscience.ceu.edu/sites/politicalscience.ceu.hu/files/attachment/basicpage/1095/stevenroper.pdf
Rowbottom, J. (2012). To rant, vent and converse: protecting low level digital speech. The Cambridge Law Journal, 71(2), 355–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197312000529
Sardo, A. (2022). Hate Speech: A Pragmatic Assessment of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 1–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10054
Shvydka v. Ukraine (2014). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 17888/12. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147445
Siryk v. Ukraine (2011). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 6428/07. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-104281
Skalka v. Poland (2003). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 43425/98. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-61105
Slavko, A.S., Zavhorodnia, V.M. & Degtyarev, S.I. (2023). Freedom оf Expression under Martial Law. (2023). International Journal of Media and Information Literacy, 8(1), 218–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/ijmil.2023.1.218
Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom (1998). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 67/1997/851/1058. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58240
Stoll v. Switzerland (2007). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 69698/01. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83870
Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (1991). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 13166/87. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57708
Sunde, I. M. (2023). To have or have not: Limiting the data available for subsequent use by the police. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(4), 495-511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231214486
Suominen, A. (2014). What role for legal certainty in criminal law within the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU?. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 2(1), 1-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v2i1.615
Sürek v. Turkey (1999). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 26682/95. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58279
Sweden v. Greece (1969). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 3323/67. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167795
Tammer v. Estonia (2001). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 41205/98. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59207
Taranenko v. Russia (2014). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 19554/05. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-142969
The Greek Case – Denmark v. Greece (1969). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 3321/67. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167795
Tumanyants, A., Hetman, H., Babanina, V., & Dovbash, R. (2023). Features of ensuring the right to liberty and personal integrity in criminal proceedings under the conditions of martial law: Precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights and Ukrainian realities. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 6(2), 153-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-6.2-n000226
Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine (2005). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 72713/01. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68648
Unified State Register of Court Decisions (n. d.). Available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/
The Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada (BVR), of April 5, 2001, No. 2341-II. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14#Text
Explanatory note to the Draft Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine (Concerning Strengthening of Criminal Liability for Production and Distribution of Prohibited Information Products)" of February 18, 2021, No. 5102. Available at: https://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=71150
The Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine to Strengthen Criminal Liability for Production and Distribution of Prohibited Information Products” of March 3, 2022, No 2110-IX. The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada (BVR). Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2110-20#Text
Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom (2013). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-7652
Vogt v. Germany (1995). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 17851/91. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58012
“Women On Waves” and Others v. Portugal (2009). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 31276/05. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91046
X and Y v. the Netherlands (1985). European Court of Human Rights. Application № 8978/80. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57603.
Yost, B. S. (2023). Lowering the boom: A brief for penal leniency. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 17(2), 251–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09609-1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.