DOTSENKO AND FILIPENKO v. UKRAINE

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application nos. 70283/17 and 50864/21
Yuriy Volodymyrovych DOTSENKO against Ukraine
and Sergiy Valentynovych FILIPENKO against Ukraine

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 December 2023 as a Committee composed of:

 Mārtiņš Mits, President,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The Court has previously held that the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. But when the national judicial authorities first examine, “promptly” after the arrest, whether to place the arrestee in pre-trial detention, that suspicion no longer suffices, and the authorities must also give other relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the detention. Those other grounds may be a risk of flight, a risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, a risk of collusion, a risk of reoffending, or a risk of public disorder and the related need to protect the detainee (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87-88 and 101-02, 5 July 2016, with further references).

Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017, with further references).

The Court also points out that round-the-clock house arrest is considered to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 (see Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, §§ 138-40, 4 July 2019).

The Court observes that in the present cases there were sufficient grounds for the applicants’ initial detention, as well as for its subsequent prolongations in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion of having committed serious offences, as well as due to the risks of their absconding and witness tampering given the personal situation and the specific circumstances of the case.

As regards application no. 50283/17, the applicant’s detention after conviction on 16 December 2016 was ordered pursuant to the verdict and was not beyond the duration of his prison sentence, so such detention fell within Article 5 § 1 (a) and was not arbitrary (see, a contrario, Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 52-56 and 62-66, 4 June 2015).

In the circumstances of the present cases, the Court finds that the applicants’ detention was based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Accordingly, these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)