FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF RUBAN v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 8927/11)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
12 July 2016

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

In the case of Ruban v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Angelika Nuberger, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Erik Mse,
Faris Vehabovi,
Sofra OLeary,
Mrti Mits, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 8927/11) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) by a
Ukrainian national, Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Ruban (the applicant), on
15 October 2010.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by
Ms N. Burns, a lawyer practising in Wembley, London. The Ukrainian
Government (the Government) were represented most recently by their
Acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that in sentencing him the
domestic courts had not applied the most lenient criminal provisions, in
violation of Article 7 of the Convention.
4. On 6 January 2014 the above complaint under Article 7 was
communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was
declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Ruban, is a Ukrainian
national, who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence.

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

6. On 13 August 1996 the Voznesensk local prosecutors office in the

Mykolayiv region started an investigation into the murder of four persons
on 12 August 1996.
7. On 18 October 1999 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutors Office started
investigating the murder of A.
8. On 10 November 1999 the Slavyansk Police Department of the
Donetsk region started an investigation into hooliganism concerning R.
9. On 22 November 1999 the above three investigations were joined.
Several persons were suspected of committing the above crimes as a group,
one of them being the applicant.
10. On 14 December 1999 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutors Office
formally charged the applicant in absentia with the above crimes. He was
also placed on the list of wanted persons. The same day the investigation in
respect of the applicant was suspended until he was apprehended; the
criminal proceedings continued in respect of the other suspects.
11. On 23 December 2002, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal
convicted and sentenced G., P. and F. for the above mentioned crimes.
12. On 2 February 2004 the Slavyansk Local Court ordered the
applicants detention.
13. On 28 June 2007 the applicant was apprehended by the Yartsevo
Prosecutors Office in the Smolensk region, Russia.
14. On 31 March 2008 the investigation was resumed after the applicant
had been extradited to Ukraine. The same day the applicant was formally
charged with participation in an organised criminal group together with G.,
P., F. and two other persons, who had died in the intervening time. The
applicant was accused of strangling A., of killing four persons together with
G. in 1996 and inflicting grievous bodily harm on R. in a murder attempt,
the latter crime in the context of the extortion of Rs brother. All these
crimes had been committed as a group.
15. On 22 May 2008 the investigation was completed and on 26 June
2008 the case was transferred to the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal.
16. On 10 July 2009 the Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court,
found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and banditry and sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
17. The applicant and his lawyer appealed, considering that the
applicants guilt had not been proved.
18. On 15 July 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment
of 10 July 2009. On that day the applicants lawyer submitted an additional
appeal claiming that the Court of Appeal had to apply the most favourable
wording of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, which was that
between 29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000 when the death penalty had
already been abolished and life imprisonment had not yet been introduced.
The Supreme Court in its decision noted that the applicant had been
sentenced correctly.

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. Constitution of 28 June 1996
19. The Constitution provides for jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court
as follows:
Article 147
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine is the sole body of constitutional jurisdiction
in Ukraine.
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine decides on issues of conformity of laws and
other legal acts with the Constitution of Ukraine, and provides the official
interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine.
...
Article 150
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine encompasses:
1) Deciding on issues of conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine (the
constitutionality) of the following:
- laws and other legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament) of Ukraine;
- decrees of the President of Ukraine;
- decrees of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
- legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
These issues are considered on an appeal by: the President of Ukraine; at least fortyfive National Deputies of Ukraine; the Supreme Court of Ukraine; the Human Rights
Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine; the Verkhovna Rada of the
Autonomous Republic of Crimea;
2) The official interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of
Ukraine;
On issues envisaged by this Article, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopts
decisions that are mandatory for execution throughout the territory of Ukraine, that
are final and shall not be appealed.
Article 152
... Acts of Parliament and other legal acts or their provisions that have been
declared unconstitutional shall lose their force from the date of adoption of the
relevant decision of the Constitutional Court on their unconstitutionality ...

B. Criminal Code of 28 December 1960

20. The relevant provisions of the Code (as worded prior to
29 December 1999) provided as follows:

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

Article 93 Aggravated murder

Murder: (a) committed for profit ... (c) committed because of the victims official
or public activity ... (i) committed by a hired killer ... (j) committed premeditatedly by
a group of persons or an organised group
shall be punishable by imprisonment of eight to fifteen years or by the death penalty
and, in cases provided for by subparagraph (a), with confiscation of property.

21. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

concerning the death penalty (see below), the Verkhovna Rada passed Law
no. 1483 of 22 February 2000 amending the Criminal Code; the death
penalty, as a punishment for some crimes, was replaced with life
imprisonment. The amendments entered into force on 29 March 2000.
C. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 29 December
1999 concerning the death penalty
22. In its decision the Constitutional Court of Ukraine examined the
constitutionality of the death penalty and found it unconstitutional. It
decided as follows:
1. The provisions ... of the Criminal Code of Ukraine which provide for the death
penalty as a form of punishment are declared to be contrary to the Constitution of
Ukraine (unconstitutional).
2. The provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine which have been declared
unconstitutional shall be null and void from the date of adoption of this decision by
the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
3. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall bring the Criminal Code of Ukraine into
line with this decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

D. Criminal Code of 1 September 2001

23. On 5 April 2001 the Verkhovna Rada adopted a new Criminal Code
which entered into force on 1 September 2001. Under paragraph 2 of
Article 115 of the Code, aggravated murder is punishable by imprisonment
for a term of ten to fifteen years, or life imprisonment.
24. On 15 April 2008 the Verkhovna Rada passed the Amendment Act
on Humanisation of Criminal Liability (the Amendment Act), which
amended certain provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In particular the amended Article 5 of the Criminal Code
contains the following provisions:
1. A law on criminal liability which decriminalises an action, mitigates criminal
liability or otherwise improves the situation of a person, shall have a retroactive
effect; it shall apply to persons who had committed the relevant act before such a law
entered into force, including persons serving their sentence or those who have
completed their sentence but have a criminal record.
...

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

4. If a law on criminal liability has been amended several times after the person had
committed the act foreseen by this Code, the law which decriminalises an act,
mitigates criminal liability or otherwise improves the situation of a person shall have
retroactive effect.

E. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 26 January

2011 concerning replacement of the death penalty with life
imprisonment
25. The Supreme Court of Ukraine applied to the Constitutional Court
with a request for interpretation of the relevant provisions of the
1960 Criminal Code. The necessity of such an interpretation was explained
by the large number of petitions lodged by persons sentenced to death prior
to Law no. 1483 (see paragraph 21 above) and whose sentences had been
commuted to life imprisonment after the Act in question had come into
force. The Supreme Court considered that after the adoption of the decision
of the Constitutional Court on the abolition of the death penalty, the
1960 Code changed and was a new law which mitigated criminal liability
for particularly grave offences and hence applied retroactively to those who
had committed crimes prior to the enactment of Law no. 1483.
26. In its decision, with reference to the admissibility decision in the
case of Hummatov v. Azerbaijan ((dec.), nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04,
18 May 2006), the Constitutional Court decided in particular that after its
decision of 29 December 1999 on the abolition of the death penalty, the
Criminal Code had not become a new law that mitigated criminal liability
for particularly serious crimes. It noted in particular:
4. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine proceeds on the basis that from the date of
adoption by the Constitutional Court of its decision of 29 December 1999 and prior to
entry into force of Law no. 1483, there was a period of time during which the
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine was deciding on amendments to the [Criminal] Code of
1960 concerning replacement of the death penalty with another type of punishment
life imprisonment. This period was due to the non-simultaneous loss of force of
provisions of the Code of 1960 on the death penalty and the entry into force of Law
no. 1483 introducing of a new type of punishment...
However, the fact that this interim period of time existed does not mean that the then
relevant sanctions under the Code of 1960 lost their alternative character and foresaw
only imprisonment for a maximum term of fifteen years as a punishment. This is
confirmed, in particular, by the fact that the Code of 1960 established a nonalternative sanction imprisonment for up to fifteen years for murder without
aggravating circumstances (Article 94). However, the legislature did not establish the
same punishment for murder with aggravating circumstances, because it considered
that there had to be a possibility for the court to apply a more severe criminal
punishment (Article 93 of the Code of 1960).
...

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

In addition, the Constitutional Court considers that after its decision of 29 December
1999 the Code of 1960 did not become a new law that mitigated criminal liability of
individuals who had committed particularly serious crimes ...
The Constitutional Court proceeds from the basis that paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the
[Criminal] Code of 2001 provides that [the Code] could be changed only by another
law on criminal liability and not by a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,
which is authorised only to declare provisions of the law on criminal responsibility
unconstitutional.

27. It concluded therefore that the provisions of the Criminal Code, as

amended by the Act of Parliament of 22 February 2000, which entered into
force on 29 March 2000, on replacement of the death penalty with the life
imprisonment, should be understood as a new Act which mitigated criminal
liability and had retroactive effect.
III. INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Opinion 190 (1995) 26 September 1995 (26th Sitting)
28. This opinion was adopted in reply to the Ukrainian request for
accession to the Council of Europe. It contained, among other things, the
following point:
Application by Ukraine for membership of the Council of Europe
... 12. The Parliamentary Assembly notes that Ukraine ... intends:
...
12.2. to sign within one year and ratify within three years from the time of accession
Protocol No. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms on the abolition of the death penalty, and to put into place,
with immediate effect from the day of accession, a moratorium on executions ...

B. Recommendation 1416 (1999) by the Parliamentary Assembly of

the Council of Europe, adopted on 24 June 1999 (23rd Sitting)
29. In 1999 in the process of monitoring Ukraines compliance with its
undertakings, the Parliamentary Assembly noted significant shortcomings in
hounouring its commitments, in particular, the failure of Ukraine to abolish
the death penalty. The recommendation noted in particular:
Honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine
1. The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1395 and its Resolution 1179 on the
honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine adopted on 27 January 1999,
in which it:
considers that the Ukrainian authorities, including the Verkhovna Rada, are
responsible to a great extent for the failure to respect the commitments Ukraine
entered into when becoming a member of the Council of Europe ...

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

Moreover, Ukraine committed itself to ratify within three years from the time of
accession (9 November 1995) Protocol No. 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights on the abolition of the death penalty; the deadline is now over and the protocol
has not been ratified
...
3. Moreover, it appears from the aide-mmoire submitted by the Ukrainian
delegation on 22 June 1999, that the following developments took place recently:
...
- on 14 June 1999, the Constitutional Court began to examine a motion forwarded
by parliamentarians on the initiative of the Ukrainian delegation to the Council of
Europe regarding the unconstitutionality of the death penalty;
...
4. This is the reason why the Assembly decides that it would be appropriate to start
at the first part of the 2000 Ordinary Session, in accordance with Rule 6 of its Rules of
Procedure, the procedure aiming at suspending the rights of the members of the
Ukrainian delegation to table official documents in the sense of Rule 23 of the Rules
of Procedure, take on duties and vote in the Assembly and its bodies, while
maintaining those members rights to attend and to speak at Assembly part-sessions
and meetings of its bodies, unless further developments regarded as substantial
progress in the sense of Resolution 1179 of January 1999 have taken place.

C. News on the Parliamentary Assembly website about the abolition

of the death penalty in Ukraine
30. The decision of the Constitutional Court of 29 December 1999
concerning the unconstitutionality of the death penalty (see paragraph 22
above), was positively commented on by the President of the Parliamentary
Assembly:
Parliamentary Assembly President welcomes the abolition of the death
penalty in Ukraine
STRASBOURG, 05.01.2000 - "The decision of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court
that the death penalty is unconstitutional and can therefore no longer be applied, is a
welcome step forward in the honouring of Ukraines obligations and commitments as
a member state of the Council of Europe. I trust that this decision will soon be
followed by the formal ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Human Rights
Convention concerning the abolition of the death penalty," said Lord RUSSELLJOHNSTON, President of the COUNCIL OF EUROPE Parliamentary Assembly (*).
"I also wish to congratulate the Ukrainian parliament on the adoption of the laws on
political parties and on the ratification of the European Charter for regional or
minority languages. These three decisions brought Ukraine significantly closer to the
fulfilment of the Assembly Resolution 1194 adopted in June 1999", the President
added.
"This progress is of the utmost importance at this stage of the monitoring
procedure. In June the Assembly had decided to start the procedure to suspend certain
rights of the Ukrainian delegation if no further compliance with the Assemblys
requests is accomplished before the end of this month ", Lord Russell-Johnston said.

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

"I trust that, encouraged by this success, the Ukrainian authorities will now keep
the momentum and continue to take the initiatives necessary to complete the process
of democratic reforms", the President concluded.
Resolution 1194 stated that the Ukrainian authorities, including the Parliament -the
Verkhovna Rada - were responsible to a great extent for the failure to respect their
commitments and obligations as a member of the Council of Europe. Further progress
was necessary to bring the Ukrainian legislation into conformity with European
standards and to ensure that the Ukrainian authorities observe these principles in their
practical work.
-----------(*) President Lord Russell-Johnston was formally informed about these
developments yesterday by a letter of Oleksandr TKACHENKO, President of the
Ukrainian Parliament.

THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION
31. The applicant maintained that in his case the courts should have
applied the most favourable wording of the relevant provisions of the
Criminal Code, which was that which had been in place between
29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000, when the death penalty had already
been abolished and life imprisonment had not yet been introduced. Failure
to do so, in his opinion, violated Article 7 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international
law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than
the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2. This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act
or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the
general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

A. Admissibility
32. The parties made no objections as to the admissibility of this
complaint.
33. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

B. Merits
1. The parties submissions
(a) The applicant

34. The applicant reiterated the Courts general principles in respect of

Article 7 developed in the case-law starting from the Grand Chamber
judgment in the case of Scoppola. He further maintained that from when he
had allegedly committed the crimes attributed to him in 1996, the relevant
provisions of the 1960 Criminal Code had foreseen the following
punishments:
(a) From 1996 to 29 December 1999 fifteen years imprisonment or
the death penalty;
(b) From 29 December 1999 to 29 March 2000 fifteen years
imprisonment;
(c) After 29 March 2000 fifteen years imprisonment or a life
sentence.
35. The applicant agreed with the Governments contention that life
imprisonment was a lesser sentence than the death penalty, but stated that
this did not change the fact that between 29 December 1999 and 29 March
2000 the maximum possible punishment provided for by the Criminal Code
had been a custodial sentence of fifteen years and that there had been no
alternative. If the applicant had been sentenced during that period of time,
the courts would have had no choice but to sentence him to a maximum of
fifteen years imprisonment, as no other alternative had been available in the
Criminal Code.
(b) The Government

36. The Government maintained that the applicant had interpreted the
domestic law incorrectly. They noted that after the decision of the
Constitutional Court of 29 December 1999 no new law had been created.
They stated that the criminal law could only be changed by the Verkhovna
Rada and that the provisions for aggravated murder had not lost their
alternative character. They considered that the period after 29 December
1999 had been given to the Verkhovna Rada in order to bring the
1960 Criminal Code into line with the decision of 29 December 1999. They
referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 26 January 2011
(cited above) in support of their argument. They maintained that the
1960 Criminal Code had only changed and become a new law after the
introduction of amendments by the Verkhovna Rada which had come into
force on 29 March 2000. The Government concluded that the fact that the
domestic courts had sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment had not
violated the principle of retroactivity of the more lenient version of the 1960

10

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

Criminal Code that pertained from 29 December 1999 to 29 March 2000 as

no such version of the Criminal Code had existed.
2. The Courts assessment
(a) Summary of the relevant principles

37. The Court first reiterates that the guarantee enshrined in Article 7,
which is an essential element of the rule of law, occupies a prominent place
in the Convention system of protection, as is underlined by the fact that no
derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 in time of war or other
public emergency. It should be construed and applied, as follows from its
object and purpose, so as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary
prosecution, conviction and punishment. Accordingly, Article 7 is not
confined to prohibiting the retrospective application of the criminal law to
an accuseds disadvantage: it also embodies, more generally, the principle
that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen,
nulla poena sine lege) and the principle that the criminal law must not be
extensively construed to an accuseds detriment, for instance by analogy
(Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, 185, ECHR 2010; Maktouf and
Damjanovi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08,
66, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). Article 7 1 guarantees not only the principle
of non-retrospectiveness of more stringent criminal laws but also, implicitly,
the principle of retrospectiveness of the more lenient criminal law; in other
words, where there are differences between the criminal law in force at the
time of the commission of an offence and subsequent criminal laws enacted
before a final judgment is rendered, the courts must apply the law whose
provisions are most favourable to the defendant (see Scoppola v. Italy
(no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, 109, 17 September 2009).
38. In the above Scoppola (no. 2) case ( 108) the Court also noted:
In the Courts opinion, it is consistent with the principle of the rule of law, of
which Article 7 forms an essential part, to expect a trial court to apply to each
punishable act the penalty which the legislator considers proportionate. Inflicting a
heavier penalty ... would amount to disregarding any legislative change favourable
to the accused which might have come in before the conviction and continuing to
impose penalties which the State and the community it represents now consider
excessive.

39. In the recent case of Gouarr Patte v. Andorra the Court extended
the guarantees of Article 7 to the possibility of retrospective revision of the
final sentence if the domestic law provided for such a possibility. In coming
to such conclusion, the Court relied on the choice of the legislator in
introducing retrospectiveness of more lenient punishments (Gouarr Patte
v. Andorra, no. 33427/10, 33 to 36, 12 January 2016).
40. The Court notes also that in the recent inadmissibility decision in the
case of Mikulovi and Vujisi v. Serbia ((dec.), nos. 49318/07 and

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

11

58216/13, 17 December 2015), it examined whether the process of abolition

of the death penalty in then federative two-layer system created a legislative
gap when the death penalty had been abolished in the Federal code but the
Serbian code had been changed only four months later. In that case, the
Court examined the existence of the legislative gap and answered in
negative, thus leaving the question open as to whether existence of such gap
might necessarily lead to a violation of Article 7.
(b) Application of the above principles to the present case

41. In the applicants case, he was found guilty of crimes committed in

1996, but was ultimately convicted of those crimes only in 2010 by the final
decision of the Supreme Court. During this fourteen year period Ukrainian
criminal law was modified on several occasions. The 1960 Criminal Code,
inherited from Soviet times, provided for the death penalty as an alternative
to imprisonment for the crime of aggravated murder. This was the situation
in 1996, when the applicant committed the crimes he was eventually
convicted of in the domestic courts. On 29 December 1999 the
Constitutional Court declared the death penalty as a punishment
unconstitutional and instructed the Verkhovna Rada to bring the Criminal
Code of Ukraine into line with this decision. The unconstitutional
provisions lost their force. Three months later the amendments adopted by
the Verkhovna Rada replaced the abolished death penalty with life
imprisonment as the maximum punishment for certain crimes, including
aggravated murder. From 29 March 2000 and until the entry into force of
the new Criminal Code on 1 September 2001 the maximum penalty for
aggravated murder was life imprisonment. This punishment is also provided
for in the new 2001 Criminal Code in force today.
42. The Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties as to the
principle of retroactivity of the most lenient wording of a criminal law as
such, but rather of interpretation of the version of the Criminal Code which
existed between 29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000. The Government
suggested that the 1960 Criminal Code had not changed immediately after
the decision of the Constitutional Court, but only from when the Verkhovna
Rada had complied with that decision and had replaced the death penalty
with life imprisonment. The applicant, on the basis of the decision of the
Constitutional Court of 29 December 1999 concluded that all provisions
which had foreseen the death penalty had lost their force immediately and as
the Verkhovna Rada had taken some time to replace the abolished death
penalty with life imprisonment, there had been no provision in the 1960
Criminal Code which had provided for a heavier penalty than fifteen years
imprisonment.
43. The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities,
notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic
legislation. Its role is thus confined to ascertaining whether the effects of

12

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite

and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, 54, ECHR 1999-I; Korbely
v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, 72-73, ECHR 2008; and Kononov
v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, 197, ECHR 2010).
44. From the relevant provisions of the Constitution, it appears that once
the Constitutional Court declares a legal provision unconstitutional, such
provision loses its validity immediately (see paragraph 19 above).
Moreover, it does not appear that any other option, such as for example
suspension of the relevant legal provision, exists under the relevant
provision of Article 152 of the Constitution. The operative part of the
Constitutional Court decision of 29 December 1999 [T]he provisions ... of
the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provide for the death penalty as a form
of punishment, are declared to be ... unconstitutional followed by [t]he
provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which have been declared
unconstitutional, shall be null and void from the date of adoption of this
Decision by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine does not seem to allow
any other interpretation either. Contrary to the Governments view, this was
also admitted as a matter of fact by the Constitutional Court itself in its
decision of 26 January 2011, in which it referred to non-simultaneous loss
of force of the provisions of the Code of 1960 on the death penalty and the
entry into force of Law no. 1483 introducing of a new type of punishment.
45. The arguments of the Constitutional Court in its decision of
26 January 2011 and their reiteration by the Government in the present case
cannot negate the fact that there was no death penalty after the relevant
provisions of the 1960 Criminal Code had been declared unconstitutional
and had lost their force. The Court takes notice of the specific context in
which the abolition of the death penalty took place in Ukraine (see
paragraphs 28-30 above) and accepts that the creation of the gap had been
unintentional. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue that the wording of the
1960 Criminal Code, which existed between 29 December 1999 and
29 March 2000, contained a punishment for the type of crime committed by
the applicant that the legislator considered proportionate. In the light of the
Courts case law under Article 7, the intention of the legislator to humanize
the criminal law and to give retrospective effect to more lenient law is an
important factor (Gouarr Patte v. Andorra, cited above, 35). From the
cited domestic law and practice, the Court cannot detect any intention of the
legislator in particular, and of the State in general, to mitigate the law to the
extent claimed by the applicant. At the time when the applicant committed
his crime in 1996, it was punishable by the death penalty. The Parliament
then replaced that penalty with the life sentence, which it considered
proportionate.
46. Thus the refusal of the domestic courts to consider the
1960 Criminal Code in its wording of 29 December 1999 as the most lenient
law enacted before the final verdict and applying instead the wording of the

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT

13

law adopted by the Parliament which came into effect on 29 March 2000,
that is long before the applicants conviction, and which has been in place
ever since, did not upset the applicants rights as guaranteed by Article 7 of
the Convention. As the Court has found previously, the sentence of life
imprisonment is not a heavier sentence than the death penalty (see, among
many other authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), nos. 9852/03
and 13413/04, 18 May 2006; and Stepanenko and Ososkalo v. Ukraine
(dec.), nos. 31430/09 and 29104/11, 14 January 2014). Therefore, the
domestic courts, having sentenced the applicant to the life imprisonment,
which was an applicable penalty at the time of conviction, and not to the
death penalty, which was a relevant penalty at the time he had committed
the crime, did apply the more lenient punishment. It follows that there was
no violation of Article 7 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Declares unanimously, the remainder of the application admissible;
2. Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 7 of
the Convention;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2016, pursuant to
Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Claudia Westerdiek
Registrar

Angelika Nuberger
President

In accordance with Article 45 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 2 of

the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge K. Hajiyev is annexed to
this judgment.

A.N.
C.W.

14

RUBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT SEPARATE OPINION

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE HAJIYEV

I respectfully disagree with the majority that there has been no violation
of Article 7 of the Convention.
The reason for my disagreement is my understanding of the fundamental
principle concerning application of the criminal law in time and space,
which is similar in most legal systems.
Thus, as can be seen from the facts of the present case, the decision of
the Ukrainian Constitutional Court to abolish the death penalty as a
punishment under the criminal law of the country was not, unfortunately,
accompanied by an indication that this decision would take effect at the
same time as the legislative amendments made pursuant to a decision of the
Ukrainian Parliament concerning the question.
The resulting gap of almost three months created a situation in which the
most severe penalty existing in the criminal law of the country was fifteen
years imprisonment.
In my opinion, it was a reasonable submission on the part of the
applicant that in the absence of the death penalty during the transitional
period and before introduction of the life imprisonment the national courts
had to apply to his case the only punishment existing under the relevant
provision, which was fifteen years imprisonment.
The applicants position is based on a general principle of criminal law,
according to which interim law providing for a more lenient penalty shall be
applied unconditionally. This clear principle has been violated in the present
case and I have therefore decided to disagree with the majority.