Communicated on 31 August 2020
Published on 21 September 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 17573/14
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych GRESS
against Ukraine
lodged on 21 February 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Oleksandrovych Gress, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Simferopol. He is represented before the Court by Mr O.Y. Kudryashov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant is a former local politician. On 12 June 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on charges of several economic crimes. On the same day he was arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine (“the SSU”).
4. On 15 June 2010 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. It held that the applicant was charged with particularly grave crimes and, relying on the investigator’s submissions, stated that it had been established by the SSU that after the institution of the criminal proceedings he had gone, and planned to go, abroad thus absconding and continuing criminal activities. It also generally referred to the applicant’s family and material status, and professional activities and concluded that, despite his positive references and absence of criminal records, non-custodial preventive measures could not be applied to him.
5. The applicant appealed, stating in particular that the above court’s finding that he was planning to go abroad was not supported by any evidence. On 30 June 2010 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the above decision.
6. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended by the District Court or the Court of Appeal on 6 August, 9 September, 11 October and 8 November 2010 (on the latter date, until 12 February 2011). The courts stated that the pre-trial investigation was not completed yet and referred essentially to the same grounds as in the decision of 15 June 2010. In some of the decisions the courts also generally held that they took into account all relevant circumstances, including the data about the applicant’s person and his health condition, and that there were no reasons to change his preventive measure.
7. Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 31 January 2011 the case was referred to the District Court which, according to the applicant, on 1 March 2011 held a preliminary hearing, extending his pre‑trial detention without any time-limit being set (the applicant did not provide a copy of the latter decision).
8. On 23 April 2014, following the events in Crimea, the District Court, acting under Russian law, released the applicant from detention upon his undertaking not to abscond.
9. The applicant did not inform the Court about the subsequent proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
10. Referring to Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decisions ordering his continued detention lacked reasons, that the courts did not consider applying non-custodial measures in respect of him and that no time-limit was set for his detention after 31 January 2011. Referring to Article 5 § 4 in substance, he also complains that under domestic law he could not challenge on appeal the decision of 1 March 2011.
11. Referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant further complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and lack of effective remedies in this respect.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 12 February 2011 till 23 April 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 73-76, 10 February 2011)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention relevant and sufficient? Did the courts consider alternative preventive measures in respect of the applicant?
3. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge on appeal the decision of 1 March 2011?
4. Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide a copy of the court decision of 1 March 2011 and the applicant’s appeals against the court decisions extending his pre-trial detention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy