FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 48759/06 and 10 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
André Potocki, President,
Síofra O’Leary,
Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2018,
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 applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicants in application nos. 48759/06, 20960/08, 53425/11, 24954/12, 35621/13, 54335/13, 73537/13 and 18073/15 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-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. 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 Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 20960/08, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It however makes no award in respect of the applicant in application no. 48759/06 who failed to respond to the Court’s invitation to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 20960/08 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. 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);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted, except for the amount in application no. 20960/08, 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 8 February 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAndré Potocki
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
48759/06
03/11/2006
Boris Vladimirovich Ivanov
12/08/1955
24/12/2003 to
18/12/2006
2 years, 11 months and 25 days
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention
0
20960/08
14/04/2008
Vasyl Georgiyovych Nazarevych
13/04/1957
21/03/2006 to
25/12/2007
27/03/2008 to
04/11/2009
08/06/2010 to
20/07/2011
1 year, 9 months and 5 days
1 year, 7 months and 9 days
1 year, 1 month and 13 days
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: around 7 years and 1 month before 3 instances
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
3,600
53425/11
16/08/2011
Vladislav Filippovich Zakordonets
20/08/1967
Arkadiy Petrovich Bushchenko
Kyiv
13/10/2010 to
18/07/2012
1 year, 9 months and 6 days
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention : the courts disregarded the applicant’s arguments as to necessity to change the preventive measure
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention: no enforceable right to compensation.
2,000
24954/12
11/04/2012
Vyacheslav Grygorovych Medvynskyy
25/07/1975
Vadym Anatoliyovych Korotych
Kirovograd
05/03/2009 to
17/12/2012
3 years, 9 months and 13 days
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: criminal proceedings have been pending before two judicial instances for at least 6 years
3,100
35621/13
27/05/2013
Andriy Vyacheslavovych Shkolyar
13/09/1981
08/04/2010 to
03/04/2013
2 years, 11 months and 27 days
Art. 5 (1) (c) - lawful arrest or detention/reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence: the applicant was held without court’s decision from 08/09/2010 till 27/09/2010, while the case was considered by the court, decisions concerning the applicant’s detention did not indicate any time-limits
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: During the proceedings the applicant lodged numerous requests for release under obligation not to abscond, that were rejected without his arguments being properly examined, the request of 06/08/2012 was considered by the court after almost one month.
5,900
54335/13
06/08/2013
Konstantin Vasilyevich Voloshin
07/01/1981
30/11/2011 to
11/04/2014
2 years, 4 months and 13 days
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: lack of reasoning in judicial decisions ordering the applicant’s arrest and continued detention, courts’ failure to consider any other alternative measures
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: the Krasnogvardiyskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk in its ruling of 30/12/2013 failed to address the applicant’s arguments advanced in his request for release.
5,900
65401/13
30/09/2013
Vasiliy Ivanovich Nedelko
22/02/1971
01/03/2012 to
03/09/2013
18/02/2014 to
06/11/2014
1 year, 6 months and 3 days
8 months and 20 days
1,400
73537/13
05/11/2013
Denis Igorevich Zgurskiy
09/07/1991
Taisa Ivanovna Zgurskaya
Dnipropetrovsk
23/11/2011 to
01/08/2012
25/10/2012 to
31/03/2013
8 months and 10 days
5 months and 7 days
Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: the applicant complains that when extending his detention the first instance court (in its rulings of 19/02/2013 and 02/04/2013) failed to provide reasons for his detention, in particular, the question of ‘reasonable suspicion’ was not addressed, respective evidence was not analysed.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: the applicant complains that the arguments raised in his plea regarding substitution of detention with an alternative preventive measure (considered by the first instance court on 19/02/2013) were not addressed by the domestic courts
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention
5,900
27839/14
30/03/2014
Bogdan Mykhaylovych Reut
12/08/1985
01/08/2011 to
30/10/2013
2 years, 2 months and 30 days
1,400
18073/15
03/04/2015
Sergiy Anatoliyovych Shyshkov
01/05/1976
13/02/2013
pending
More than 4 years and
10 months
Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: the applicant complains that when extending his detention, the first instance court failed to give reasons for his continued detention
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: criminal proceedings against the applicant started on 13/02/2013 (supported by the presented documents) and are pending before the first instance court. The length of almost 5 years before one judicial instance is excessive.
5,900
21737/17
16/03/2017
Aleksandr Anatolyevich Tishyna
03/07/1970
Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya
Strasbourg
21/05/2015 to
15/03/2017
1 year, 9 months and 23 days
1,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy