Communicated on 23 August 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 60253/12
Mikhail Vladimirovich GRIGORUK
against Ukraine
lodged on 7 September 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Vladimirovich Grigoruk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Simferopol.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 February 2010 the applicant was arrested. On 17 February 2010 he was charged with abuse of power and exceeding his authority as a police officer, forgery and certain other related offences.
On 18 February 2010 he was released on the basis of an undertaking not to abscond. Among the reasons for his release the investigating authority noted that he had a wife, a child of young age, and a permanent place of residence and there was no risk that he would abscond.
On 29 June 2011 the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy District Court (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant of exceeding his authority and forgery and sentenced him to two years and one month’s imprisonment. The court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody pending entry into force of the judgment.
On 18 October 2011 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed the judgment and remitted the case for retrial. It ordered the applicant’s continued detention without giving any reasons.
On 21 and 30 March, 16 May, 25 July and 12 September 2012 the applicant asked to be released. He argued, in particular, that throughout the proceedings he had complied with all the decisions of the authorities and there were therefore no grounds justifying his detention, and that he had a young child, a permanent place of residence and positive references.
On the same dates the trial court rejected the applicant’s requests, stating that the applicant stood accused of several counts of serious crimes and the case was in its early stages.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention that on 18 October 2011 the domestic courts ordered his detention without giving any reasons and then rejected his requests for release without adequate reasons, and that his detention was unreasonably lengthy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention after 18 October 2001?
2. Was the applicant’s detention in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention? Did they consider alternative measures of ensuring the applicant’s appearance at trial?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention after 18 October 2001, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy