Communicated on 16 September 2020
Published on 5 October 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 53656/13
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich BARSUKOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 6 August 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s detention which was not covered by a court decision, the alleged lack of justification of his detention, and the alleged lack of an effective procedure to review the lawfulness of his detention. In the course of the criminal proceedings concerning fraud, on 3 May 2013 the local court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 29 June 2013. On 25 June 2013 the criminal case against the applicant, together with the relevant bill of indictment, was transferred to the court for consideration on the merits. The applicant was not released upon expiration of the term of detention established by the court’s decision of 3 May 2013, and remained in detention until 9 July 2013 when the trial court again extended his detention. The applicant’s applications for release were dismissed by the local court as unsubstantiated on 3 and 17 July 2013. Referring to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that his detention between 29 June and 9 July 2013 was unlawful as it was not covered by a court decision. The applicant furthermore complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the decision of the trial court of 9 July 2013 lacked justification. Lastly, the applicant complains under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective procedure to review the lawfulness of his detention during the above period of time.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention between 29 June and 9 July 2013 compatible with the requirements of the above provision?
2. Did the decision of the Kyivskyi District Court of Simferopol of 9 July 2013 extending the applicant’s detention on remand contain sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. 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