Позитивні обов'язки держави в контексті права людини на життя (на основі практики ЄСПЛ щодо України)

Abstract

Проаналізовано рішення Європейського суду з прав людини щодо Укра-їни за період 2002–2016 рр. у контексті позитивних обов’язків, які випливають зі статті 2 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод. Продемонстровано, які саме аспекти права людини на життя було порушено в Україні, зокрема: шляхом невиконання приписів законодавства; коли представники держави знали про загрозу життю і не вжили відповідних заходів для його захисту, та ін. Також наведено рішення, де ЄСПЛ не констатував порушення позитивних обов’язків. The human right to life has always caused and causes now the increased interest in academics. However, some problematic aspects have not investigated yet despite of such interest. In particular, issues which concern the standpoint of the European Court of Human Rights on the human right to life. In February 2006 the Law of Ukraine «On the enforcement and application of European Court of Human Rights practice» was adopted and its Art. 17 states that the Convention and the ECHR’s court practice are sources of law in Ukraine. Article 2 of the Convention protects the right to life that is one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention. Both Art 2 and Article 3 enforce one of the fundamental values of democratic societies that make up the Council of Europe. The author, Kurulo Larysa, has made the analysis of ECHR judgments concerning Ukraine for the period from 2002 to 2016 from the perspective of finding violations of positive obligations relating to article 2 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms stated by this international judicial institution. It has been shown what aspects of the right to life was violated in Ukraine (obligation to provide adequate legislation on health care, failing to take adequate measures by the authorities to protect society from a particular person of social danger who they knew about and were required to take appropriate measures, public authorities’ failing in fulfilling their positive obligation in order to protect the life of a particular individual from the threat, which they were informed about, and the individuals being under the authorities’ control). Also such solutions of European Court of Human Rights have been indicated which found no violation of positive obligations and some circumstances contributed to the fact. So, the topic of the peer-reviewed article is certainly relevant.