Communicated on 2 May 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 27916/12
Oleksiy Ivanovych DOBRYN
against Ukraine
lodged on 27 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Ivanovych Dobryn, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 August 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of fraud. His pre-trial detention was extended several times. In particular, on 3 December 2010 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal extended it to seven months and twenty-five days (until 1 April 2011).
On 15 March 2011 the criminal case against the applicant was forwarded to the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Zaporizhzhya for trial. According to the applicant on 14 April 2011 that court committed him for trial. By the same decision the court maintained his detention on remand. The applicant alleges that he was not served with its copy.
On an unspecified date the judges of the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Zaporizhzhya sitting in the applicant’s case had recused themselves from the case and the latter was transferred to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the trial court”).
In the course of the trial, on 27 November 2011 the applicant introduced a request to review the lawfulness of his arrest on 6 August 2010 and further detention pending trial. He alleges that the trial court ignored his request.
At the court hearing on 18 January 2012, the applicant asked the trial court to release him from detention. On the same day the trial court refused that application, having stated that it was not foreseen by the law.
On 28 March 2012 the trial court allowed the applicant’s application and released him from detention pending trial.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention from 2 to 14 April 2011 was not covered by any judicial decision and was therefore unlawful. The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of his pre‑trial detention. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the trial court ignored his application for release which he had lodged on 27 November 2011, and that the trial court refused his other application for release without providing reasons on 18 January 2012.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty between 2 and 14 April 2011 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his detention during this period covered by a judicial decision?
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. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy