MENU

Human rights in Ukraine 2009 – 2010. 11. Freedom of movement and choice of the place of residence

23.02.2011

1

1. General overview

The right to freedom of movement has been grossly disregarded in 2009-2010. Curfew for the minors, introduced by local self-governments on a broad scale, was the most negative development in this regards. The long duration of investigation, often involving written obligation of a party not to abscond, used as a preventive measure, is another restriction of freedom of movement. Groundless restriction of freedom of movement for the persons, released from custody and put under administrative supervision, presents another serious problem. Obtaining a passport, either internal or for travel abroad, also is a complicated procedure restricting the freedom of movement.

It is indicative that in 2010 the cases when militia would restrict the freedom of movement to prevent public from attending peace manifestations in Kiev, was registered again, for the first time since 2004. Without any explanations and for no good reason, militiamen would block transportation vehicles (buses and minivans) taking the participants to the peaceful meetings to Kiev. Often the drivers of the vehicles were threatened with revocation of their licenses. These cases were registered, in particular, at the time of mass events, set up by the opposition in May, during patriarch Cyril’s visit to Kiev in August, in the course of mass protests against Draft Tax Code in October and November. In all these instances militia denied the illegality of their actions.2

The process of transition from the system of residential permits (“propyska”) to registration so far remains unaccomplished – a lot of public services, i.e. health care, placing a child in a school etc, are not reconciled with the registration system, thus restricting the free choice of place of residence.

The procedure of issuing travel passports also remains unsatisfactory – it takes a lot of time, is linked to bureaucratic red-tape, is costly and unaffordable for many citizens. It does not comply with legislation in force and therefore leads to many abuses and corruption in this area. For example, many documents not stipulated by the law, e.g. insurance policies, or additional fees, e.g. for the certificate of absence of criminal record, are demanded from the public.

The situation with the internal passports is not much better. Terms of passports’ issue are not observed, thus restricting the freedom of movement for the individuals who, without a passport cannot either register or perform any other related actions. Militia offers partial explanation, i.e. lack of passport forms, but that does not explain the problem as a whole. The passport departments, operating under the auspices of Housing and Communal Services, presently turned into usual offices. As such they often refuse services to the public, (passport issue or replacement, registration or its removal at the place of residence, issue of various certificates) on the basis of the residents’ debts in payments for communal services. This practice, obviously illegal, is spreading due to the lack of the MIA control over the passport offices.

The conflicts, arising from border control units’ refusal to let foreigners enter the Ukrainian territory, remain rather frequent. Over 9 months of 2009 the border control turned down 16 415 persons; over 9 months of 2010 – 13 576 persons (over 12 months of 2008 this figure amounted to 24 760 persons).3

 

2. Freedom of movement: «written obligation not to abscond» and «administrative supervision»

As criminal investigations tend to take very long, a preventive measure in the form a «written obligation not to abscond» is often applied under the articles 148-150 of the Criminal Proceedings Code.

It means that a person cannot leave the boundaries of an administrative/territorial unit of his/her registration without a permit from the investigative body. The longer the term of forcible “staying in place”, the more serious is the violation of personal right to freedom of movement.

On February 18, 2010 the European Court for the human rights passed a ruling in the case “Nikiforenko v. Ukraine” (application no. 14613/03), in which the violation of article 2 of the Protocol № 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights(freedom of movement) was established. Nikiforenko has been under criminal investigation for a lengthy period of time; the case was continued more than once for additional inquiries. Between January 1998 and October 22, 2008, i.e. for 10 years, 9 months and 19 days, she was under the obligation of staying at the same place. During this time she was not allowed to leave the city boundaries without a permit: several times she was granted the permit to see her family, and several times she left without permit. The court agreed that the restriction of freedom of movement was imposed in accordance with the law and in pursuit of lawful goal. It disagreed, however, that such a long term was an appropriate measure of restricting Nikiforenko’s rights. Besides, the court added in its ruling that it looks especially disproportionate with regard to unjustifiably long investigation of a minor offense. That’s why it passed the decision on the fact of violation of the freedom of movement.

On October 7 the European Court of human rights passed a ruling in the case “Pokalchuk v. Ukraine”(application no.7193/02) in which the violation of freedom of movement through “written obligation not to abscond” was established. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, with further use of a preventive measure i.e. “written obligation not to abscond” which remained in force for 10 years starting 2000.

Actually, the problem is still in place, despite the rulings of the European Court of human rights and the fact that the court already identified this problem in the case Merit v. Ukraine (decision of March 30, 2004).

Under the law on administrative supervision, in force since 1995, the person released from custody can be subject to preventive measures of control and supervision by the court decision. These measures, however, in real life result in restriction of freedom of movement. One can see the point of regular reporting to the law enforcement agencies on a person’s place of residence. However, article 10 of the said law, envisages the following restrictions, which can be fully or partially applied to the persons under administrative supervision:

а) prohibition to leave a house ( an apartment) for a given period of time ( not longer than 8 hours at a time);

б) prohibition to visit certain places in a district (city);

в) prohibition of leaving a district (city) or restricted duration of absence.

These supervision measures can be used for a term from one to two years. Under article 2 the administrative supervision is ordered for some individuals released from custody to prevent crime and re-educate them. How does the restriction of freedom of movement contribute to achieving these goals? How justified and necessary is the establishment of 2-years’ term for restrictions? Can’t it be classified as a punishment metered out in addition to all the other punishments imposed on a convicted person already? It is unclear, how keeping a person in one place, let us say, in Kiev, would help militia in preventing him/her from committing another crime. The difference in leaving city for private purposes (e.g. to meet with family), or business purposes, is also hard to grasp. These issues are open to discussion and we would argue that the restriction of freedom of movement is contrary to article 33 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

3. Freedom of movement: curfew for the minors

In 2009 numerous self-government bodies started to pass decisions, prohibiting children unaccompanied by adults from staying in the streets or in public places.

According to these decisions, if a child is found in the street, he/she can be detained by militiamen who would take him/her to the militia department, call parents and hold them administratively accountable under article 184 of the Administrative Code (negligence of parental or guardian’s duties penalized by the fine in the sum of three to five salaries before taxes). The application of this article is open to discussion, as the parental duties defined in the Family Code do not include an issue concerning unsupervised children’s stay outside at night. In fact, the new duty was introduced without any amendments to the Administrative Code of Ukraine, thus calling the accuracy of the administrative law into question.

In general, the prohibition for the unaccompanied minors’ to stay in the streets or in the entertainment venues at night-time does not raise any objection. But this prohibition entails the restriction of freedom of movement, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution.

The intervention should be carried out in compliance with the law. I.e. any interference into the human rights must be regulated by the law, and not by the decisions of local self-governments.

These decisions in themselves represent disproportionate restrictions of the freedom of movement, as they have no time limits and do not promote the protection of child’s rights. In other words, they are not necessary, as a form of restriction, in a democratic society.

Freedom of movement can be restricted only in cases stipulated by the law for the times of emergency. This law spells out the implementation of the restrictions under specific circumstances, in specific areas and for the strictly defined time period.

All the arguments considered, the permanent prohibition for minors from staying in the streets, without exceptions, is a violation of their right of free movement.

UHHRU considers that local self-governments have no authority in establishing bans for the movement of children. With this certainty in mind, UHHRU helped a citizen to appeal the decision of Chernihiv obalst’ council of December 24, 2009, which restricted the freedom of movement for the minors’.

The appeal qualified the aforementioned decision as “gross violation of human and citizens’ rights, specifically, the fundamental right to freedom of movement.

“1. According to article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Movement and Choice of Place of Residence in Ukraine” Ukrainian citizens are guaranteed the freedom of movement. Article 3 of the said Law spells out that freedom of movement means the right to move around freely and unimpeded on one’s own free will in the territory of Ukraine in any direction, by any means, at any time.

According to article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Movement and Choice of Place of Residence in Ukraine the freedom of movement can be restricted only by the law.

2. As the appealed decision is not a law, Chernihiv oblast’ council in passing it exceeded the scope of its competences. The article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Governance” stipulates that the local self-governments can address the local issues only within the framework of the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine. Article 10 of the same Law reads that oblast’ councils are bodies of local self-governance, representing common interests of the territorial communities of the villages, settlements and cities within the scope of competences defined by the Constitution of Ukraine and its Laws.

Therefore passing the decision in question Chernihiv oblast’ council went beyond the scope of the law.

3. The right to the freedom of movement is also guaranteed in article12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by the Decree № 2148 – VIII of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Presidium on October 19, 1973). And part 1 of article 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine spells out that international treaties in force constitute a part of the national legislation.

4. On July 17, 1997 Verkhovna Rada by Law № 475/97-SR ratified Protocol No4 to European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 2 of this Protocol also guarantees the right to free movement. It also stipulates that this right can be restricted by law only, if a need for that arises in a democratic society. Therefore the council decision is not a law, and the imposed restrictions cannot be regarded as necessary in the democratic society. The set goals, i.e. preventing alcohol sale to the minors, reducing the instances of child delinquency, could be achieved without violating human rights, by means of enhanced control over the alcohol selling stores, preventive measures etc.

Thus, Chernihiv oblast’ council exceeded its competences in passing the decision “On restrictions of children’s stay in the entertainment venues, public catering places, computer clubs, in the streets and other public places”. It violated the fundamental right to the freedom of movement for my son and other minors residing in Chernihiv oblast’”.

By the decision of Desna district court of the city of Chernihiv of June 10, 2010, this administrative appeal was partially satisfied; specifically, items 1-3, restricting the freedom of movement, of this decision were cancelled. However, other items of the decision concerning preventive measures remained in force. UHHRU did not object. In June Chernihiv oblast’ council filed appeal against this decision, but it has not been heard in the court yet.

Thus, the court annulled the decision of a local self-governance body on introducing a curfew for the minors, as it violated the human rights and represented administrative access. The court, agreeing to this argument, stated in its ruling:

“Therefore, taking into account that Chernihiv oblast’ council passed a normative/legislative act exceeding the authority, granted to self-government bodies, the decision under appeal does not comply with laws of higher order and violates legitimate right of Chernihiv oblast’ minors to freedom of movement, the appeal is satisfied. “

 

On June 3, 2009 Minister for the Family, Youth and Sports Yuri Pavlenko declared that prohibition for unaccompanied children and underage persons from staying in the public places after 22:00 should be stipulated by respective law. Pavlenko stressed that the Ministry developed following proposals to amend legislation: not only restrict the children and underage persons’ stay outside at night-time, but enhance the parents’ and other concerned adults’ responsibility for children’s safety and health as a whole. In particular, the amendments were to be made to the Law on the Protection of Childhood and Administrative Code of Ukraine. Article 184 of the Administrative Code of Ukraine was to be amended with sections 5 and 6, which would establish a notice or fine – from five to eight minimum wages for “ parental or guardian’s neglect of children under 16 years of age, which leads to the children’s stay in the streets or in public places after 22:00 without plausible reason”.4 This draft, however, never made it to parliament.

On June 29, 2010 Verkhovna Rada rejected a draft law, 5 forbidding children under 16 to appear in entertainment venues, discothèques and night clubs between 22:00 and 6:00. Only 38 members of parliament out of required 226 voted for this draft, submitted by Communist Party representative Volodymyr Danylenko. Besides, the Rada refused to return the document to its author for amendments. Under the draft law, parents or the adults performing parental functions are also held administratively liable for allowing their minor children to stay unsupervised in public places between 22:00 and 6:00.

 

Illegal introduction of curfew for the minors: timeline

November 2005 – decision of Bila Tserkva (Kiev oblast’) city council: “Establish due procedure for the restriction of minors’ visiting public places at night-time – after 21:00 in winter time and after 22:00 in summer time”.

April 30 2009 – decision № 498 of Novohrad-Volynsky (Zhytomyr oblast’) city council: “Restrict the stay of minors and juveniles under 16 years of age, unaccompanied by parents or guardians…in the city streets at night-time, after 22:00 during fall-spring period and after 23:00 during summer period”.

May 28 2009 – decision № 822 of Zhytomir oblast’ council “Restrict the stay of unaccompanied children under 14 years of age in the city streets and other public places in Zhytomyr oblast’ settlements at night-time after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 16 years of age – after 23:00”. Later similar decision was passed by Zhytomyr city council.

July 2009 – Berdychyv city council (Zhytomyr oblast’) passed a decision” Restrict the stay of the children under 14…in public places after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 16 years of age – after 23:00, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

June 2009 – decision was made in Kremenchug.

December 24 2009– decision of Chernihiv oblast’ council : “Restrict the stay of children under 14 years of age in the city streets and other public places in Chernihiv oblast’ settlements at night-time after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 16 years of age – after 23:00”.

January 26 2010– decision № 6 of Pryluky city council (Chernihiv oblast’): “Restrict the stay of children under 14 years of age in the city streets and other public places in the city at night-time after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 16 years of age – after 23:00 if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

February 11 2010 – decision of Ternopil oblast’ council: “Prohibit the “stay of children under 14 years of age in the city streets and other public places in Ternopil oblast’ settlements at night-time after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 18 years of age – after 23:00, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

March 20 2010 – decision of Koryukiv raion council (Chernihiv obalst’) : “Restrict the stay of children under 14 years of age in the city streets and other public places in Zhytomyr oblast’ settlements at night-time after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 16 years of age – after 23:00 if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

March 31 2010 – Simferopol city council passed decision on “restricting the stay of children, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians, in the public places of the city between 22:00 and 6:00”.

April 28 2010 – Khmelnytsky city council at its session passed decision №2 : “Children under 16, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians, are prohibited from staying… in the city streets and other public places ( parks, gardens, stadiums, at night-time after 22:00 in fall-spring and after 23:00 – in summer”.

April 29 2010 – decision № 1325 of Chernivtsy city council: “Prohibit the stay of children less than 18 years of age in the city streets and other public places in Chernivtsy at night-time after 23:00, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”. Earlier, in September 2009 the draft of this decision was withdrawn from the city council agenda to be published and discussed as a regulatory document. On January 28 2010 the city council submitted a proposal on restriction of children’s stay in the entertainment venues, public catering premises, computer clubs, in the city streets and other public places, to Verkhovna Rada. Evidently the city council was aware of the fact that it lacked the authority to regulate this issue; nevertheless, in four months’ period the decision was passed.

May 12 2010 – decision № 98-38/10 of Chernivtsy oblast’ council: “ Prohibit the stay of persons under 16 years of age in the city streets and other public places at night-time, after 23:00, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

June 23 2010 – decision № 3956-МР of Sumy city council : “Restrict the stay of unaccompanied children under 14 years of age in the city streets and other public places in Sumy at night-time after 22:00 and of persons between 14 and 18 years of age – between 23:00 to 6:00, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

July 2010 – decision of Horodyshche city council (Cherkassy oblast’): “Restrict the stay of unaccompanied children less than 16 years of age in the city streets and other public places after 23:00, if unaccompanied by parents or guardians”.

The aforementioned list shows that this unlawful practice is rapidly gaining momentum in the country. It also makes it evident that new decisions are made on the basis of the earlier ones.

 

4. Freedom to choose the place of residence

The freedom to choose the place of residence is generally respected. Nevertheless, the legal regulation of the issue has a number of faults, dating back to “propyska” era. The problems arise in two areas.

1. Realization of many rights and freedoms depends on the official place of registration. This connection dates back, probably, to the times of serfdom and soviet practice of mandatory registration. The realization of rights, stipulated by Laws of Ukraine “On Governmental Social Standards and Governmental Social Guarantees”, “On Pensions”, “On Education”, “The Basics of Health Care Legislation”, “On Protection of Public against Contagious Diseases”, “On Employment” etc, is possible only with valid registration. Citizens without permanent place of residence or registration cannot renew their papers, find employment, and get medical care or social assistance.

In fact, this requirement is an indirect lever of power, forcing citizens to register. Administrative liability for unregistered residence is another form of coercion. It goes without saying, that the state has the right to introduce the registration system to safeguard public order. This registration, however, should not lead to numerous complications and inconveniences for the citizens, as it does today.

2. Citizens, who do not have their own house/apartment, for the most part, are not able of registering at their actual place of residence, due to groundlessly narrow definition of registration eligibility. In other words, the registration concept is not clearly separated from the concepts of housing ownership or use. In practice, it creates a lot of registration-related problems, which increase on daily basis.

The obstacles to registration at the end of the day are harmful for the state, as significant number of people lives without registration or at the places other than those, where they are registered (i.e. where it is legally feasible, e.g. with family). Thus, the system of mandatory registration fails, and, as of today, is inefficient. That’s why the country does not have a comprehensive database on physical persons’ registration at their place of residence.

It’s noteworthy that the registration legislation in Ukraine is rather strict; the MIA, however, does not use it in full measure, which means that the law does not reflect the real situation in the society. For example, there is no mechanism to register temporary sojourn of the individuals in a given place.

Hence, the amendments to registration legislation are called for. The registration should be a formality, and not a procedure linked to any rights of housing ownership or use.

 

5. Rights of the homeless

Protection of the homeless’ rights still remains topical. As mentioned earlier, the citizens without registration are denied many rights. It aggravates the legal status of the homeless persons and practically throws them out of the social security system.

The state attempted to overcome this gap by adopting a number of laws to resolve this issue. By their force, the shelters for the homeless and centres for their social rehabilitation were set up. However, the implementation of these laws’ provisions remains unsatisfactory.

In Kiev, for example, the homeless are provided with temporary 2-months’ registration in the special offices, but then they are refused the registration renewal without any logical or legal explanation. So the temporary registration is granted for obtaining the identification documents. After that the person returns to the previous condition, due to the lack of registration, and, consequently, lack of access to the social assistance programs.

Mister К. Lived and worked in Kiev. He did not have his own housing. That’s why he could not get registered. He approached the Centre of social assistance under the Chief Directorate of social protection of population in Kiev State Administration. He was registered there, but only temporarily. Later the registration was removed. He appealed, complained to the prosecutor’s office, but in vain. He was either completely ignored or registered for a short period of time, e.g. for 14 days. Evidently the head of the Centre of social assistance had no legal grounds for his actions. In July 2008, with a help of UHHRU attorney, Mr. K .brought an administrative suit to the court. On December 3, 2008, Solomenka district court in Kiev passed a positive decision, obliging respective bodies to register him permanently and to provide him with a bed in the Centre of social assistance’ shelter. Thus, the court confirmed that the homeless should be granted permanent registration.6 The Centre of social assistance, however, refused to implement the decision, and the executor was reluctant to comply with it by enforcement. Later the Centre filed an appeal. The Appellation court, despite obvious fact that appeal period had expired, did not call the plaintiff or even inform him about the appeal, which was considered without the plaintiff. On April 27 2010 (the full text of the decision was compiled on April 29, 2010), Kiev Appellation court repealed the Solomenka district court decision of December 3 2008. The plaintiff filed the cassation appeal on May 29, 2010, but it was never considered.

The case is a typical example of the violation of the homeless’ rights.

Besides, the relevant legislation is in place only in certain populated areas, predominantly in oblast’ centres. In real life it means that significant number of homeless people do not have access to any forms of assistance.

According to the data provided by the regional employment and social protection agencies, as of March 2010, 47 centres (departments) for the registration of the homeless were set up and are in operation. 44 of them are communal centres, while 3 have been created by the NGOs. (In 2008 there were 44 social centres for the homeless in place, including 13 operating under NGOs.).

In 2009 the centres for the registration of the homeless identified over10 thousand persons, including 1, 3 thousand senior citizens ( almost 13%). 6, 2% among them were made up by disabled persons ( documented or visibly disabled), 16, 3% – persons released from penitentiary institutions, and almost 4% - by families with children.

In 2009 the centres registered over 7.6 thousand people and supplied them with relevant certificates. About 5.4 thousand of them were registered for the first time.

In 2009 the centres sent almost 3.2 thousand persons to social assistance offices; 1.7 thousand of them were helped;

– to medical institutions – almost 2. 23 thousand; 505 persons among them were hospitalized.

– to employment and social protection agencies– 453 persons, 100 out of which were placed into the shelter.

Due to these activities, according to the MIA, in 2009 almost 4.8 thousand homeless persons were registered at their predominant domicile (in 2008 this figure amounted to 4.4. thousand); 1.4 thousand Ukrainian passports were issued, including 696 passports issued to the persons released from jail (in 2008 these figures amounted respectively to 1.4 thousand and 348).7

 

6. Recommendations

1. According to the Opinion of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly No 190 concerning Ukraine joining the Council of Europe, the functions of registration of Ukrainian citizens, foreigners and stateless persons in the Ukrainian territory should be passed from the MIA to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

2. Finalize the reforming of registration legislation taking into account best world practices and the Law of Ukraine on freedom of movement and free choice of the place of residence.

3. For the registration of physical persons:

  • Revoke the temporary registration procedure stipulated by the Law of Ukraine on freedom of movement and free choice of the place of residence ( though envisaged by the law, this procedure is not applied in practice);

  • Accomplish the introduction of computerized registration system, using best world practices and observing international standards for human rights protection. The system should be autonomous and not contain other personal data, collected by other governmental agencies;

  • Consider the possibility of broadening the list of criteria for registration eligibility (e.g. as it was done in the Law on voters’ lists), and also revise the legislation removing from it interdependence between fulfilment of rights and registration. The provision entitling a person to the housing ownership or use through registration shall also be removed from the law. The procedure of removal from registration in private housing shall be simplified, while interdependence between registration and claims to the public and communal housing shall also be withdrawn. Without these measures an efficient registration system is not feasible.

4. Harmonize the MIA procedure for the travel passport issue with the acting legislation; namely, make it uniform for the whole territory of Ukraine and put an end to the illegal demands for additional documents (e.g. insurance policies, certificate on the absence of criminal record, ID number, confirmation of payment of additional fees).

5. The MIA should ensure timely issue of internal passports.

6. The MIA should enhance control over the operation of passport offices under Housing and Communal Services Departments.

7. Specify the procedure for issuing seaman’s passports with due considerations to the freedom of movement and clear provisions on restrictions to travel abroad.

8. Abolish the practice of restrictions on travels abroad for the persons who have access to state secrets.

9. Local self-governments should repeal their decisions on curfew for minors, as it contradicts the law.

10. Criminal Proceedings Code should be amended with provisions regulating maximum term of “written obligation not to abscond” as preventive measure.

11. The Law “On Administrative Supervision” should be amended with specific provisions regulating restriction of freedom of movement for the persons released from custody.

12. The MIA should put an end to the practice of stopping/detaining buses and other means of transportation bringing participants to the venues of peaceful public events, as this practice can be regarded as illegal restriction of their freedom of movement.

==========

1 Prepared by Volodymyr Yavorsky, UHHRU executive director.

2 See, e.g. Opposition claims that the power tries to ruin Kiev rally on May 11. http://newsru.ua/ukraine/07may2010/sorvatmeet.html; Tyahnybok’s people at the meeting in front of Rada talk about pressure on carriers, http://world.pravda.com.ua/news/2010/05/7/5017305/; Volyn’ council deputies are upset with the Road inspection pressure on carriers; http://zik.com.ua/ua/news/2010/06/30/235059; Opposition protest action: Road inspection and Security Service exert pressurehttp://dw-world.de/dw/article/0, , 5979909, 00.html; In Khmelnitsky oblast’ pressure on carriers is exerted http://moyagazeta.com/news/a-2880.html; In Ternopil and Lviv there is also talk abut Road inspection pressure related to Kiev rally http://pravda.com.ua/news/2010/05/10/5028407/; Road inspection was ordered to ban entrepreneurs from participating in protest action in Kiev http://tsn.ua/ukrayina/dayishnikam-nakazali-ne-puskati-pidpriyemciv-na-akciyu-protestu-do-kiyeva.html; Militia banned entrepreneurs from participating in the rally in front of Rada http://pravda.com.ua/news/2010/10/21/5500627/; Road inspection was ordered to ban entrepreneurs from participating in protest action in Kiev http://4post.com.ua/politics/174132.html; never made it to the rally http://rivnepost.rv.ua/showarticle.php?art=025308; Militia banned entrepreneurs from participating in protest action in Kiev http://newsmarket.com.ua/2010/10/10022222/militsiya-pereshkodzhala-pidpriyemtsyam-pr

3 Results of the field operations of the State Border Control Official Site http://pvu.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=48708&cat_id=78111.

4 Ministry for the Family, Youth and Sports: restrictions for children’s stay in the public places at night should be defined by the law press-service of the Ministry: http://kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/printable_article?art_id=219764917.

5 Draft law No 4243 of June 18, 2009. On introducing amendments to some legal acts of Ukraine 9 on the childhood protection)

6 See court decision: «A homeless Kievite assisted by UHHRU attorney won the case against KCSA” UHHRU site 15.01.2009 , https://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?id=1232022165.

7 Report on implementation of the order of Ministry of Labor, Ministry for the Family, Youth and Sports, Health Ministry, MIA, State Committee for Nationalities and Religions, State Department for the execution of the punishment of 19.02.2009 №70/411/101/65/19/32 „On procedure of interaction of the agencies providing assistance for the homeless citizens” March, 18 2010, http://mlsp.kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/category;jsessionid=508EA4EDEB5BCD5889554D417DAE2609?cat_id=34941.  

 

 Share this