issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 252 (2016)
12.07.2016
Life prisoner was not entitled to a more
lenient sentence due to a gap in legislation
European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been:
no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
The case concerned entitlement to a more favourable sentence due to a gap in legislation. Mr Ruban
– serving a life sentence for aggravated murder – alleged that, had he been sentenced during the
three-month gap between the time when the death penalty had been abolished in Ukraine and life
imprisonment had not yet been introduced, the courts would have had no choice but to sentence
him to a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment.
The Court stressed the importance of taking into account what the intention of the legislator was
and, in particular, whether it was to humanise the criminal law and to give retrospective effect to
more lenient law. In the Court’s view the creation of the three-month gap – between the abolition of
the death penalty and its replacement with life imprisonment – had not been intentional. In any
case, in Mr Ruban’s case, Parliament had replaced the death penalty with a life sentence, and the
courts had therefore in fact applied the more lenient form of punishment.
Principal facts
The applicant, Vladimir Ruban, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving
a life sentence for aggravated murder and banditry.
In July 2009 Mr Ruban was convicted at first-instance of aggravated murder and banditry. The
offences had been committed in 1996 and, at that time, the 1960 Criminal Code provided for
15 years’ imprisonment or the death penalty for an offence of aggravated murder. However, on
29 December 1999 the Constitutional Court had found the death penalty to be unconstitutional with
immediate effect; and, three months later, on 29 March 2000, Parliament had amended the Criminal
Code so as to replace the abolished death penalty with life imprisonment for the offence of
aggravated murder. Mr Ruban was thus sentenced to life imprisonment.
In an appeal to the Supreme Court in July 2010, Mr Ruban claimed that he should have benefited
from the more lenient sentence which had been applicable to an offence of aggravated murder
during the three-month period between the ruling of the Constitutional Court and the amendment
of the Criminal Code, namely 15 years’ imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court upheld the
judgment of July 2009, noting that Mr Ruban had been sentenced correctly.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 7 §§ 1 and 2 (no punishment without law), Mr Ruban alleged that, had he been
sentenced during the three-month gap between the time when the death penalty had been
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
