Burlya and Others v. Ukraine (application no. 3289/10)

The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been violations of both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 taken together with Article 14 in a case involving an anti-Roma attack and the authorities' response in Ukraine.

Facts 

In 2002, a 17-year-old Ukrainian was murdered in Petrivka, allegedly by a Roma person, after an altercation with local youngsters. The village council of Petrivka subsequently met and decided to expel all people of Gypsy ethnicity from the village.  

On September 9, 2002, they changed the wording of their decision to ask law-enforcement officers to expel "socially dangerous individuals, regardless of ethnic origin." Following this decision, the mayor warned all Roma residents that a ‘pogrom’ would start and that they should leave their homes. That night, several hundred people initiated a mob attack, ransacking the Roma residents’ homes, and destroying their belongings. Local police officers were present during the attack but did nothing to prevent or stop the event.  

The District Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against persons unknown on suspicion of disorderly conduct committed in a group but refused to open criminal proceedings against the village council’s officials. 

Issues 

The European Court of Human Rights needed to examine whether the attack on the Roma residents was driven by anti-Roma sentiment and whether the authorities had failed to provide necessary legal protection to the Roma residents due to their ethnicity. 

Reasoning  

The Court found that the attack was clearly driven by anti-Roma sentiment among the village residents, as evidenced by the village council’s decision to expel all people of Gypsy ethnicity from the village.  

The authorities, including the local and district police, had known about the threat of a pogrom, and had warned the Roma residents to leave the village. However, the authorities did not explain or justify why the local police had taken such a passive attitude during the attacks, and why the police officers had merely tried to minimise the damage by giving the Roma a warning to flee.  

According to the Court, these findings, taken together with the village council's decision of 9 September 2002, created the appearance of official approval for the attackers’ action, even though the domestic courts quashed this decision in 2003, several months after the events. Therefore, the authorities had not offered the necessary legal protection to the Roma residents due to their family relations and ethnicity.  

The Court held that the Roma residents’ knowledge that their homes would probably be ransacked while not being able to protect them without putting their lives at risk must have caused them feelings of fear, anguish, helplessness, and inferiority, which grossly diminished their dignity. The Court concluded that the applicants had suffered degrading treatment due to their Roma identity, and therefore there had been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3, taken together with Article 14, in respect of the first group of applicants. Additionally, the Court found that the authorities had also violated the procedural aspect of Article 3, taken together with Article 14, in respect of the first group of applicants. 

Conclusion: 

The ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3, taken together with Article 14, in respect of the first group of applicants who were present in the village during the build-up to the attack and had to flee their homes under the threat of that attack. The Court ordered the respondent state to pay each of the 13 first-group applicants €12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.