FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SPESYVTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 29978/14 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Spesyvtsev and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Lado Chanturia,
María Elósegui, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention6. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references).
8. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to the national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with the national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references).
9. The Court found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases set out in the appended table.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention during periods described in the appended table was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
11. These complaints as set out in the appended table are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant case-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. However, in application no. 29978/14 the applicant raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention regarding unlawful detention and procedural shortcomings in the proceedings related to the extension of his pre-trial detention. At the same time, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the merits of these complaints (see, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Ichin and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 28189/04 and 28192/04, § 47, 21 December 2010). As to the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table), having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
14. In application no. 32225/20 the applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction, despite being invited to do so. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, 29 January 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention, as described in the appended table, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the merits of the remaining complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention by the applicant in application no. 29978/14;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 32225/20, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name
and location
Period of unlawful detention
Specific defects
Relevant domestic decision
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
29978/14
08/04/2014
Volodymyr Anatoliyovych SPESYVTSEV
1987
Zubenko Viktoriya Vasylivna
Kharkiv
22/11/2013 to 17/01/2014
absence of any grounds given by the court in the decision authorising detention (Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15,
§§ 36-37, 15 December 2016)
Pervomayskyy Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 22/11/2013
1,800
250
32225/20
21/07/2020
Oleksandr Viktorovych HRYTSENKO
1975
Dyomin Denys Sergiyovych
Kyiv
16/11/2019 - 18/11/2019
no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11,
§§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15,
§§ 83-85, 17 September 2020)
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - as to refusal of the national courts to consider the issue of the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest - the applicant on 18/11/2019 lodged a complaint concerning the lawfulness of his arrest under Article 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and later raised the same issue in the court which examined the prosecutor’s petition in respect of the applicant on the application of a preventative measure. The applicant also raised the issue in his appeal to the decision on the application of a preventive measure. However, none of the courts examined his complaints (Svershov v. Ukraine,
no. 35231/02,
§§ 70-72, 27 November 2008).
-
-
57918/21
19/11/2021
Alla Mykolayivna KRYVOSHEYEVA
1982
Zrachevskyy Yevgen Yuriyovych
Sumy
between 5.35 p.m. on 10/01/2020 and
7.00 a.m. on 11/01/2020
unacknowledged deprivation of liberty or delay in the drawing up of the arrest report (Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 43611/02, §§ 113-15, 15 October 2015, Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15,
§§ 71-73, 17 September 2020, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention
(Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015)
1,800
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.