APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENT IN THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

The study highlights the problem of applying the principle of individualization of punishment in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It is noted that the issues of sentencing and the implementation of the individualization principle remain among the most debated in contemporary criminal law. Ensuring a balance between society’s need for effective protection against crime and the observance of the defendant’s rights constitutes a complex task that directly affects the level of trust in the judiciary. In this context, the principle of individualization of punishment serves as a crucial guideline, allowing the avoidance of formalism and guaranteeing fairness in each specific criminal proceeding. The principle requires courts, when imposing punishment, to take into account the gravity of the crime, the offender’s personal characteristics, as well as mitigating and aggravating circumstances, thereby directing sentencing toward the goals of prevention and rehabilitation. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights convincingly demonstrates that ignoring the personalized aspects of the offender’s identity contradicts the principle of justice. Conversely, excessively harsh, standardized, or «automatic» sanctions without a genuine opportunity for review are incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Court of Human Rights has been consistent in affirming that the application of the principle of individualization of punishment requires judicial decisions to be based not only on the formal elements of a criminal offense but also to consider the individual’s conduct, motives, and potential for resocialization. Individualization of punishment is not merely a technical-legal instrument but a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial that combines the protection of society with the affirmation of human rights. Its consistent implementation contributes to the humanization of criminal policy, compliance with European standards, and the preservation of public trust in justice. Ukraine’s national criminal policy faces a range of challenges, including disproportionality in the design of sanctions and insufficient flexibility in the choice of penalties. This underscores the need to expand the discretionary powers of courts to ensure genuine individualization. At the same time, the principle of justice serves as a methodological foundation that imbues individualization with practical meaning.