Communicated on 28 August 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 881/13
Sergey Vladimirovich GOLOVANOV against Ukraine
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications principally concern the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention awaiting the determination of the criminal charges brought against them. Some of the applications also concern the allegedly unjustified bail condition, the allegedly unreasonable duration of the applicants’ detention, the alleged lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of their detention, and the alleged absence of a right to compensation in that regard.
In particular, the alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and/or 5 of the Convention took place during the following periods:
In so far as application no. 881/13, lodged on 19 December 2012 by Mr Sergey Vladimirovich Golovanov, a Russian national, is concerned: between 29 May 2009 and 27 April 2015.
In so far as application no. 64627/13, lodged on 7 October 2013 by Mr Fedor Vasilyevich Oksanich, a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 13 March and 2 September 2013.
In so far as application no. 21702/14, lodged on 3 March 2014 by Mr Volodymyr Yevgenovych Kadushkevych, a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 18 and 23 September 2013.
In so far as applications nos. 42209/15 and 42237/15, lodged on 21 August 2015, respectively, by Mr Oleg Mykolayovych Bilyk and by Mr Vyacheslav Stepanovych Shovkalyuk, Ukrainian nationals, are concerned: between 1 April 2014 and 2 March 2015.
In so far as application no. 27331/16, lodged on 28 April 2016 by Mr Valentyn Tsezarovych Zhyzitskyy, a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 9 November 2015 and 3 February 2016.
In so far as application no. 11356/17, lodged on 17 March 2016 by Mr Ivan Ivanovych Bilyy, a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 17 March 2014 and 17 March 2016.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards all the applications
Was the applicants’ detention during the respective periods as specified above in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to address the applicants’ specific complaints under that provision as set out in their applications, including the applicants’ arguments that their detention was not in accordance with the domestic law and/or that the decisions authorising their detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons (all the applications, except no. 27331/16), and/or that their detention was not covered by any decision at all (applications nos. 42209/15, 42237/15 and 27331/16).
ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards applications nos. 881/13, 64627/13, 42209/15, 42237/15 and 11356/17
Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention during the respective periods as specified above in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application
no. 64627/13
Was there a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, having regard to the applicant’s complaint that the Kyiv Court of Appeal failed to assess his ability to comply with the bail condition, as set out in its decision of 8 April 2013?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application
no. 21702/14
Was there a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, having regard to the applicant’s complaint that he was not given sufficient time and facilities to study the case-file during the hearing of 19 September 2013 concerning the lawfulness of his arrest?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards applications nos. 64627/13, 42209/15, 42237/15 AND 11356/17
Was the procedure by which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their detention during the respective periods mentioned above in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, having regard to the applicants’ complaints that the review of the lawfulness of their detention was neither thorough nor speedy?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application
no. 11356/17
Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand during his trial, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards applicationS noS. 64627/13 and 11356/17
Assuming that their pre-trial detention was in violation of paragraphs 1, 3 and/or 4 of Article 5, did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
881/13
19/12/2012
Sergey Vladimirovich GOLOVANOV
02/01/1968
Kyiv
Lyudmila Mikhaylovna KICHUZHINETS
64627/13
07/10/2013
Fedor Vasilyevich OKSANICH
11/06/1956
Kyiv
Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
21702/14
03/03/2014
Volodymyr Yevgenovych KADUSHKEVYCH
22/03/1967
Kyiv
Taras Volodymyrovych SENIV
42209/15
21/08/2015
Oleg Mykolayovych BILYK
27/03/1981
Kyiv
Oleg Viktorovych GURICH
42237/15
21/08/2015
Vyacheslav Stepanovych SHOVKALYUK
24/08/1961
Kyiv
Oleg Viktorovych GURICH
27331/16
28/04/2016
Valentyn Tsezarovych ZHYZITSKYY
28/06/1971
Gorodok
Maya Stepanivna CHUKHAS
11356/17
17/03/2016
Ivan Ivanovych BILYY
23/09/1984
Pidgorodne
Oleksandr Anatoliyovych IGNATOV
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy