Decision of the ECHR of December 8, 2016 on the case "Chernetsky against Ukraine (Chernetskiy v. Ukraine)" (application No. 44316/07).
In 2007, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Ukraine.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for unjustified delays in issuing to the prisoner a certificate of divorce required for remarriage. There has been a violation of Article 12 of the Convention.
The circumstances of the case
The applicant complained to the Court in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention that in 2005-2008 he was prevented from remarriage because he served a 15-year prison term and did not have permission to visit the civil registry office to obtain certificates of divorce after the dissolution of their previous marriage. After the adoption of the new legislation, the applicant received a certificate of divorce in prison in February 2009.
Concerning compliance with Article 12 of the Convention. The Court recalls that personal freedom is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to marry. The fact that deprivation of liberty deprives a person of his liberty, and also inevitably or by default some of the civil rights and privileges, does not mean that persons held in custody can not or can only exercise their right to marry only by way of exception. Furthermore, although the right to divorce can not be deduced from Article 12 of the Convention, if domestic law allows for divorce, it secures to divorced persons the right to remarry in the absence of unreasonable restrictions.
The applicant could not marry a new partner from February 2005 to October 2008, as the authorities could not finish the registration of the divorce and present him with a relevant certificate of divorce in prison. This restriction of the applicant's right to remarriage was significantly prolonged, reaching more than three years and seven months. It was further aggravated by the fact that before the registration of a new marriage, the applicant had no right to long private visits, but only to short (four-hour) meetings in the presence of the supervisor. Under such circumstances, the restriction was unjustified and detracted from the very essence of the applicant's right to marry and found a family.
The violation of the requirements of Article 12 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant.
See also the Jaremowicz v. Poland judgment of 5 January 2010, complaint No. 24023/03, and the Frasik v. Poland judgment of 5 January 2010, complaint No. 22933/02.