Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202
December 2016
Ignatov v. Ukraine - 40583/15
Judgment 15.12.2016 [Section V]
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Measures of a general character
Respondent State required to take further measures to eliminate structural problems relating to pre-trial detention
Facts – On 21 February 2013, following the Court’s judgment in Kharchenko v. Ukraine (40107/02, 10 February 2011, Information Note 138) identifying shortcomings in the Ukrainian system of detention on remand, the Ukrainian Government submitted a Revised Action Plan in which they stated that the legislative shortcomings had largely been eliminated with the coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure 2012.
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, which was responsible for supervising the execution of the Kharchenko judgment under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, subsequently noted that, while the new Code largely improved the procedure for detention on remand, it had not resolved certain violations of Article 5, particularly as regards the period between the end of the investigation and the beginning of the trial (see Chanyev v. Ukraine, 46193/13, 9 October 2014, Information Note 178). The Committee of Ministers insisted on the urgency of rapidly bringing about the remaining necessary legislative reforms and on the necessity of ensuring in the meantime that all possible practical measures are taken by courts and prosecutors to prevent further violations of Article 5 with regard to detention on remand. It continued to keep the execution of the Kharchenko judgment under “enhanced supervision”.
In the instant case, the applicant, who was held in pre-trial detention for over two years before his prosecution was ultimately discontinued for lack of evidence, complained to the European Court of the unlawfulness and length of his detention and of inadequate review procedures (Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention).
Law – The Court found, unanimously, violations of Article 5 § 1 (lack of reasons given by the domestic courts for prolonging pre-trial detention), Article 5 § 3 (length of pre-trial detention) and Article 5 § 4 (failure to examine requests for release with due expedition).
Article 46: The violations of Article 5 found in the applicant’s case could be said to be recurrent in the case-law concerning Ukraine. Those issues had been considered to stem from legislative lacunae, and the respondent State had been invited to take urgent action to bring its legislation and administrative practice into line with the Court’s conclusions in respect of Article 5. As the present case demonstrated, however, neither the new legislation nor the practice had remedied the situation (see also the conclusions of the Committee of Ministers).
The Court therefore considered that the most appropriate way to address the violations was to amend the relevant legislation without delay and to adjust the judicial and administrative practice accordingly, in order to ensure that domestic criminal procedure complied with the requirements of Article 5.
Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy