The plaintiff sued her ex-husband and asked the court to evict her ex-husband, the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff owned half of the house and the other half of the house belonged to her brother. After the divorce, the defendant-appellant lived in the same house without becoming a joint owner. The defendant-appellant systematically caused moral and physical suffering to the plaintiff and violated the rules of cohabitation.
On five occasions from 2007 to 2013, the applicant's ex-husband inflicted injuries on the applicant, which the domestic authorities classified as minor bodily injuries. The police and the prosecutor's office repeatedly refused to open criminal proceedings due to the lack of evidence. In 2012, the offender was convicted of committing a crime under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily injury) because criminal liability for domestic violence (Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) was not legislated until 2017 in Ukraine.
By signing the Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, Ukraine accepted the commitment to ratify several EU anti-discrimination directives on equal treatment for men and women concerning access to, and provision of, goods and services; gender equality in balancing professional and family responsibilities; gender-based discrimination, etc. The report (“Analytical research 'Gender discrimination in access to work and services: assessment of the state of implementation of anti-discrimination measures by Ukraine EU Council Directive”) consists of two parts.
The case was initiated by three male applicants, who complained that the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine, which regulates the procedure and conditions for the executing and serving criminal sentences, contained contradictory provisions and differing visitation rights for male and female life prisoners. The Code provided that life prisoners were to serve their sentences in maximum-security correctional colonies and that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every six months. No reference to prisoners’ gender was made in the relevant Articles.
This report by LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World” contains a comprehensive analysis of the situation of the LGBTQ community in various spheres of social life, including relations with state and law enforcement agencies, the church, and the general public. The experts also investigated violations committed by the occupation authorities. The authors draw attention to legislative shortcomings in Ukraine in terms of regulating the status of LGBTQ communities.
The applicant was a single mother of two children. As part of a social program, she was provided a flat. Later, the prosecutor applied to the courts to terminate the applicant's right to the flat, due to the applicant's conviction and sentence in Russia, which prevented her from using the housing for about a year. The court of first instance found against the applicant, who then appealed on the basis that she had paid all the necessary payments and had nowhere else to live.
The applicant intended to change her patronymic (this term means a part of a personal name was traditionally derived from the name of the father of the person concerned) to disassociate herself from her biological father and associate herself more closely with her stepfather and half-brother. Despite the fact that the woman successfully changed her surname to the surname of her stepfather, she was not allowed to change her patronymic.
The study was prepared based on the results of a survey conducted among women that were subjected to domestic violence, as well as on a qualitative analysis of Ukrainian legislation.
The study from JurFem is dedicated to the analysis of women serving prison sentences. According to experts, Ukrainian legislation on serving prison terms is mostly gender-neutral regarding women and men.
The applicant, a 16-year-old boy, was held in handcuffs and underwear in a police station for 2.5 hours and subsequently placed in a cell with adults. He was interviewed at a police station concerning a murder, rape, and robbery investigation. According to the applicant, under this pressure, he confessed to murder. Domestic courts convicted the applicant of robbery and aggravated murder, and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that his confessions were inadmissible because they had been obtained under duress.
