FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 71660/11
Vyacheslav Vasylyovych BARYSHEVSKYY against Ukraine
lodged on 9 November 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vyacheslav Vasylyovych Baryshevskyy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Konotop.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 December 2008 the Konotop Transport Prosecutor’s Office of the Sumy Region instituted proceedings into unlawful deprivation of liberty, misappropriation of money and identity documents and infliction of bodily harm on Mr Z. by the officers of the Konotop Transport Police.
The applicant, a police officer, was questioned as a witness and had a confrontation with Mr Z.
On 9 January 2009 the applicant was arrested in the Sumy Police Hospital, in which he was receiving in-patient medical treatment, and taken to the Konotop Police Station.
The applicant was held in the Station until 25 January 2009. During his stay there an ambulance was called for him on several occasions.
On 12 January 2009 the Konotop Local Court examined the applicant’s complaint against his arrest and the investigator’s request for the applicant’s detention. The court rejected the applicant’s complaint and extended his detention for up to ten days.
On 17 January 2009 the applicant was accused of abuse of power.
On 19 January 2009 the Konotop Local Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime related to corruption which had become publicly known, that being at large he could evade investigation, continue his criminal activities and influence persons related to the investigation, that his state of health permitted his stay in detention.
The same day, the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the above decision.
On 25 January 2009 the applicant was transferred to the Sumy SIZO.
On 3 February 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 19 January 2009.
On 5 March 2009 the Sumy Zarichnyy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for up to three months. The court noted that the applicant was accused of a serious crime and if released could evade investigation and trial, obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case and influence witnesses and victims. This decision was upheld by the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal on 24 March 2009.
On 3 April 2009 the investigation brought additional charges against the applicant for misappropriation of money and documents.
On 7 April 2009 the Sumy Zarichnyy District Court extended the applicant’s detention for up to four months on the same grounds as in its decision of 5 March 2009. This decision was upheld by the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal on 28 April 2009.
On 6 May 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for up to six months on the ground that the applicant was accused of serious crimes punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and that being at large he could obstruct investigation and to continue his criminal activities.
On 10 June 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Sumy Region approved the bill of indictment against the applicant and referred the case to the trial court.
On 30 June 2009 the Konotop Local Court held a preparatory hearing. The applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release, but this request was rejected. The court considered that there were no reasons to change the preventive measure in respect of the applicant.
On 16 February 2010 the applicant requested his release, but the trial court disregarded his request.
On 23 February 2010 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of money and abuse of power and sentenced him to five years and one month’s imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property.
On 18 May 2010 the Sumy Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 February 2010 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. It also decided that the applicant’s preventive measure should remain unchanged.
On 17 September 2010 the first-instance court found the applicant guilty as in its previous judgment and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property.
On 25 November 2010 the Sumy Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 September 2010 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. It also decided that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.
On 21 February 2011 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of money and abuse of power and sentenced him to five years and one month’s imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property.
On 17 May 2011 the Sumy Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 21 February 2011 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. It also decided that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.
On 22 September 2011 the applicant requested his release claiming that his state of health was not compatible with detention and that he could not receive appropriate medical treatment in SIZO (according to the medical certificates issued in July and August 2011, the applicant was registered as having the following medical conditions: hypertonic disease, steatosis, chronic cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitis and chronic gastritis). The trial court rejected this request the same day without giving any reasons.
On 29 September 2011 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of money and abuse of power and sentenced him to five years and one month’s imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property.
On 17 January 2012 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 September 2011 with some amendments. The applicant was then transferred to the Menskyy Prison to serve his sentence.
On 5 July 2012 the Menskyy Local Court of Chernigiv Region released the applicant on probation for good behaviour upon the motion of the prison authorities.
On 29 January 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal of 17 January 2012 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on appeal.
On 16 April 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 29 September 2011 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he could not receive appropriate medical treatment while in detention. He further complains that his detention was unlawful and unreasonably long and the domestic courts failed to provide convincing reasons for his detention or to examine his request for release. He refers to Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. He also complains about length of the criminal proceedings against him under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment in detention, in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy