Communicated on 16 October 2020
Published on 2 November 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 27117/20
Kateryna Mykolayivna DAMBE
against Ukraine
lodged on 20 May 2020
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Kateryna Mykolayivna Dambe, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1995 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. She is represented before the Court by Ms Y. Nimets, a lawyer practising in Kryvyy Rih.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 22 June 2016 the applicant was charged with having caused intentional grave bodily injury to a man who died afterwards. On 29 June 2016 the applicant was committed to trial.
On 20 March 2018 the Dovhyntsivskyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rih (“first-instance court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, taking into account the gravity of charges and the fact that the applicant had been placed on the list of wanted persons.
On 10 May, 13 June, 7 August, and 1 October 2018 the first-instance court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
On 24 October 2018 the applicant, when in pre-trial detention, gave birth to her third child, B., who stayed with her in the detention facility. The applicant did not indicate the real identity of the child’s father on the birth certificate.
On 23 November 2018 and 4 January 2019 the first-instance court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
On 28 February 2019 the first-instance court, having regard to the applicant’s family status, changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant and placed her under twenty-four hour house arrest.
On 25 April 2019 the first-instance court extended the order for house arrest.
On 7 June 2019 the first-instance court changed the preventive measure from house arrest to pre-trial detention, after finding that the applicant had systematically violated the regime of house arrest. The court further decided that the applicant’s child should be given to the local childcare authority for care given that the child’s father had not been identified and the applicant was placed in the detention facility.
On 8 July 2019 the Dnipro Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 July 2019, noting that the applicant had breached the rules of house arrest. As regards the removal of the child, the court of appeal considered that the courts had a duty to take care of the applicant’s child who could not be left alone.
On 15 July, 27 August, 21 October, and 16 December 2019 the first‑instance court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 31 January 2020 the Dnipro Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the latest decision extending the pre-trial detention order.The applicant’s children and parental authority
The applicant is the mother of three children: K. (born on 27 September 2014), D. (born on 14 December 2016), and B. (born on 24 October 2018).
On 1 February 2018 the applicant was deprived of her parental authority in relation to K. and D.
Following the court decision of 7 June 2019 ordering the removal of B. from the applicant (see above), the local childcare authority placed B. in a municipal children’s hospital.
On 19 June 2019 the local authorities decided that B. should be treated under domestic law as a “child without parental care”.
On 22 July 2019 the local authorities decided to place B. in a foster family. That decision was implemented.
On 24 September 2019 the local authorities instituted court proceedings seeking to deprive the applicant of parental authority in respect of B., the third child. The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of her pre-trial detention and house arrest has been excessive and that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions on the preventive measures. She further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings has been unreasonable.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did the courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions on the preventive measures, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
2. 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