Communicated on 3 July 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 24178/14
Inna Yevgenivna BARTKOVA
against Ukraine
lodged on 13 March 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Inna Yevgenivna Bartkova, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1988 and is currently held in detention. The applicant is represented before the Court by Ms E.V. Opryshko, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 March 2013 the Vinnytsya City Police Department opened criminal investigation on the allegations that the applicant and other individuals had committed financial frauds when selling apartments in Vinnytsya in the period between September 2012 and March 2013.
Between 13 June and 2 July 2013 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment on the premises of Kyiv Regional Psychiatric and Narcological Association. She was diagnosed with acute psychiatric polymorphic disorder with signs of schizophrenia; paranoid hallucinatory syndrome.
Between 9 July and 13 September 2013 the applicant underwent treatment in the same medical institution on account of paranoid schizophrenia.
On 30 August 2013 the applicant deregistered her place of residence in the city of Vinnytsya and on 4 September 2013 she registered her place of residence in the village of Zaliznyy Port, Kherson Region.
Between 20 and 23 September 2013 the investigator requested the Vinnytsya City Court (“the first-instance court”) to issue an arrest warrant against the applicant. In his request the investigator submitted that on 26 and 29 July 2013 the applicant had not appeared for questioning. The relevant notices had been sent on 22 July 2013 to the applicant’s registered address in the city of Vinnytsya and they had returned unclaimed. On 24 August 2013 notices requesting the applicant to appear on 28 and 30 August 2013 had been given to the applicant’s mother who had informed the investigator on 27 August 2013 that the applicant was undergoing inpatient treatment and that the latter would appear before him after her discharge from the medical institution. The applicant’s mother had refused to specify the place where the applicant had been treated. Subsequently, until 20 September 2014, the applicant had failed to appear before the investigator without giving any reasons for her absence. The investigator therefore insisted that between 26 July and 20 September 2013 the applicant had repeatedly failed to appear at his requests and that she had not informed the authorities of the reasons for her absence. On that ground, he asserted that the applicant had been hiding from the investigative authorities and had to be arrested.
On 23 September 2013 the first-instance court allowed the investigator’s request, considering that the applicant could reoffend, she could hide from the investigative authorities and impede the criminal proceedings. In that regard the court stated that the applicant was unemployed and suspected of a serious crime which had caused substantial pecuniary damage to victims; furthermore, she did not reside at her registered address. The court referred to the notices issued by the investigator, requesting the applicant to appear for the questionings, and a police officer’s report stating that he could not find the applicant at her registered address.
On 27 September 2013 the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons.
On 14 January 2014 the applicant was readmitted to the Kyiv Regional Psychiatric and Narcological Association where she underwent treatment on account of paranoid schizophrenia and attempted suicide.
On 22 January 2014 the applicant was arrested on the premises of that medical institution.
On 23 January 2014 the court examined the investigator’s request for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court found that the applicant was reasonably suspected of financial frauds and that the investigator and the prosecutor had proved the existence of the risks necessitating the applicant’s detention in custody. The court therefore ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for sixty days, until 22 March 2014. At the same time, the court fixed the bail in the amount of 1,300,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) as alternative preventive measure, noting that the amount of bail had been determined after the consideration of the circumstances of the alleged crime, the applicant’s material status and her financial situation.
On the same day the first-instance court ordered a psychological and psychiatric expert examination to determine whether the applicant could be held criminally liable. The court ruled that for this purpose the applicant should be transferred to the Odessa Regional Psychiatric Centre for the period of up to two months.
On 3 February 2014 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the decision of 23 January 2014 concerning the applicant’s preventive measures, stating that the findings of the first-instance court had been lawful and substantiated.
On 19 March 2014 the first-instance court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for another sixty days, until 21 May 2014. The court stated on the one hand that the applicant had a positive reference, she had no criminal records, she was divorced and had to look after her minor child. On the other hand, the applicant was unemployed, she had lived outside Vinnytsya region and she had hidden from the investigative authorities for a long time, she had changed her registered place of residence and she was suspected of a serious crime. The court therefore concluded that the applicant could hide from the investigative authorities, if at liberty. At the same time, the court set a bail in the amount of UAH 1,300,000 as alternative preventive measure.
The applicant appealed seeking to change the preventive measure for written undertaking not to abscond or to reduce the amount of bail.
On 4 April 2014 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the court decision of 19 March 2014.
On 29 April 2014 the criminal case was referred to the first-instance court for trial.
On 14 May 2014 the first-instance court held a preparatory hearing in the case and prolonged the applicant’s detention in custody for another sixty days, until 13 July 2014, finding that there were no grounds to change that preventive measure.
On 8 July 2014 the first-instance court prolonged the applicant’s detention in custody for another sixty days, until 13 September 2014, finding that there were no grounds to change that preventive measure.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 5 § 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the court decisions concerning her detention in custody were unsubstantiated.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide relevant material (including court decisions) concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy