Europe

Article 24 of the Family Code of Ukraine specifies that marriage requires the consent of the woman and the man, free from coercion. “Voluntary marriage” is a rather broad concept, which includes the right to freely decide to enter and maintain marriage, as well as to dissolve a marriage and terminate marital relations. At the same time, the Family Code requires that a court declare a marriage null and void if it was registered without the free consent of either party.

Articles 49, 50 of the Family Code of Ukraine refer the right to maternity and the right to parentage to the personal non-property rights of spouses. The term “maternity” means women’s legally guaranteed right to reproductive opportunity on (i.e., to give birth to children, raise them). The core of this personal non-property right is the wife's authority to decide whether or not to have a child. In addition, these articles establish that a woman's reluctance to have a child or her inability to conceive a child can be grounds for the dissolution of marriage.

The applicant complained to the ECtHR that (i) he was ill-treated by police officers and (ii) the domestic authorities had failed to effectively investigate his allegations in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The applicant had been arrested by police officers of the drug crimes unit and taken to a police station. According to the applicant, he was mistreated in order to make him confess. In particular, he alleged that he was threatened with rape, kicked and hit on the head and torso, threatened with weapons,  and dropped face down on the floor while handcuffed.

The plaintiff sued his wife, the defendant, to have his name as the father removed from a birth certificate. The child was born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (“ART”).

The ex-husband (the defendant) systematically committed domestic violence against the complainant – his ex-wife: beating her, threatening to kill her and the children and to burn down the building where she was living with the children). For his illegal behavior (systematic domestic violence), he was jailed for four months (this type of punishment involves keeping a person in isolation for 1-6 months).

The appellant sued his wife, the defendant, with whom he was in a de facto marital relationship (i.e., their marriage was not officially registered), to return funds unjustly acquired by her. According to him, he had won the national lottery and received a prize in the amount of UAH 400,000. While he was abroad, the defendant withdrew these funds from his bank account without his knowledge. The appellant believed that the defendant had no claim to his winnings and that he should get the money back.

The appellant went to court to deprive the defendant, her husband, of parental rights of their children. According to her, the defendant was not paying sufficient attention to the upbringing, health, and development of their child as well as failed to pay child support. Furthermore, there were conflicts between the spouses that had a negative impact on the child.

The plaintiff turned to court for a restraining order against the defendant, her husband, to keep him away from their joint place of residence and remove obstacles to her using the car that was purchased during their marriage and belonged to the plaintiff. She argued that, although they were officially married, the marital relationship between them had effectively ended. The husband constantly resorted to economic and physical violence against her, taking away funds and preventing her from earning money for her living expenses and treatment on her own.

The abuser inflicted multiple blows on the defendant with fists, feet, and a wooden bat, threatening her life and health. After that, the man grabbed an ax and threatened to kill her. To prevent this, the defendant wrenched the ax from the offender and, when the latter fell to the floor, hit him with it at least 36 times, which resulted in his death. During the examination of the case, the lawyer argued that the defendant was acting in self-defense and therefore the killing was a result of exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense (Art.