Communicated on 3 December 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 54014/13
Dmitriy Vasilyevich BABICH
against Ukraine
lodged on 11 August 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Vasilyevich Babich, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974 and resides in Lysychansk. He is represented before the Court by Mr S.S. Medvedev, a lawyer practising in Lysychansk.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 September 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having engaged in a number of fraudulent real-estate transactions, in association with several other individuals.
On 21 September 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Lugansk remanded the applicant in custody, referring to the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and noting that, if at liberty, the applicant could obstruct the investigation into his case or abscond. The court had particular regard to the fact that he had been officially employed outside Lysychansk, whereas Lysychansk was the town in which he was registered as a resident.
On 5 October 2012 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicant against that decision, and released him after he had given an undertaking not to abscond. It noted, in particular, that the applicant’s detention was unwarranted considering that his permanent residence was in Lysychansk; that he had a family to support, included two minor children and his elderly mother, that he was officially employed, he had provided positive character references and had no criminal record. The court also noted that the role which the applicant was alleged to have played in the offences (involving other individuals) with which he had been charged was minor.
On 18 November 2012 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Lysychansk City Court.
On 10 July 2013 the prosecutor asked the court to remand the applicant in custody, referring to the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that, if convicted, he could face a prison term exceeding three years. The prosecutor also submitted, without providing any details, that, being at liberty, the applicant was obstructing the investigation into his case and encouraging witnesses to either refuse to testify, or to give false testimonies.
The court granted the application on the same date that it was made, referring to the gravity of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and to the need to prevent him from absconding, obstructing the investigation and engaging in further criminal activity. The court also made reference to the need to secure procedural efficiency.
In accordance with the applicable law, that decision was not subject to appeal. In spite of this, the applicant complained (unsuccessfully) to the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal, seeking to secure his release. He submitted in his appeals that the decision of 21 September 2012 to remand him in custody, which referred to the same grounds for his detention as the decision against which he had appealed, had already been quashed as unsubstantiated. Following his release from detention in 2012, he had dutifully reported to the investigation authorities and attended court hearings when summoned, and there was no evidence that he had put witnesses under any pressure, tampered with evidence in any other way, or obstructed the investigation into his case. He also submitted that he was innocent of the offences with which he had been charged and that it was not in his interests to abscond or obstruct the investigation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he has been arbitrarily remanded in custody and that there are no effective remedies available to him in respect of that complaint. He relies on Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty on 10 July 2013 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, regard being had to the grounds given to justify his detention (see, e.g., Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27‑31, 14 October 2010 and Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, §§ 64-74, 3 July 2012)?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy