Communicated on 26 June 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 2371/13
Anna Valeryevna BULAVKA
against Ukraine
lodged on 28 December 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Anna Valeryevna Bulavka, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1983. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. O. Glazov, a lawyer practising in Odessa.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 June 2012 the applicant was arrested in Odessa on suspicion of having committed drug-related offences between March and May 2012.
On 15 June 2012 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the first-instance court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 25 June 2012 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 15 June 2012 considering that the preventive measure had not been justified and ordered the applicant’s release on bail. The court found that the applicant had a permanent place of residence, she had a positive reference, her previous conviction had been spent, the applicant suffered from a chronic illness and her mother was admitted to a hospital for inpatient treatment and required additional care. The court held that there had been no information about the risks of absconding, obstructing the establishment of truth in the case or reoffending by the applicant.
On 26 June 2012 the applicant was released on bail.
On the same day she was arrested on suspicion of another drug-related offence which had been allegedly committed in April 2012.
On 27 June 2012 the first-instance court, relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days.
On 5 July 2012 the first-instance court granted the request of the investigator to change the applicant’s preventive measure from bail to detention in custody. The court stated that the applicant had been charged with a number of serious drug-related offences, she had not admitted her guilt and the investigation had not been completed. Based on those considerations the court found that the applicant, if at liberty, might abscond or obstruct the establishment of truth in the case.
The applicant appealed, arguing that there had been no ground to detain her in custody and that the conclusions of the first-instance court had not been supported by any specific facts pointing at the risks justifying pre-trial detention.
On 9 July 2012 the Odessa Court of Appeal upheld the decision for changing the preventive measure, finding that the first-instance court had properly taken into account that there had been additional charges against the applicant, she had not cooperated with the investigative authorities, she had refused to admit her guilt and the investigation had not been completed by that time.
On 9 August 2012 the first-instance court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for an overall period of four months, taking into account the investigator’s submissions that the investigation had not been completed and there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure.
The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed.
On 3 October 2012 the Odessa Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for overall period of six months, holding that there had been a number of investigating measures which had to be undertaken and that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure.
As of the date of application, the applicant remained in custody.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of 1960 can be found in the judgment in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine, (no. 2161/02, §§56-59, 28 October 2010).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that the court decisions of 5 and 9 July 2012 concerning the change of preventive measure in her respect were contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in that the courts failed to substantiate their findings.
2. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that her further detention pursuant to the court decisions of 9 August and 3 October 2012 was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
3. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the court of appeal failed to consider her appeal properly and to take all the relevant factual and legal issues into consideration when reviewing the first-instance court decision of 5 July 2012 concerning her pre-trial detention.
4. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that she could not claim compensation in respect of his complaints about unlawful detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s detention based on the court decisions adopted between July and October 2012 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, did the Court of Appeal carry out appropriate review of the decision of 5 July 2012 concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention?
3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her arrest and detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy