Communicated on 23 September 2020
Published on 12 October 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 64471/13
Mykola Sergiyovych KOSINSKYY
against Ukraine
lodged on 27 September 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article 3 of the Convention of being confined in a metal cage during the court hearings in his case, and of being handcuffed on the hearing days without any justification. The case also concerns the alleged lack of justification of his pre-trial detention, the alleged lack of an effective procedure to review the lawfulness of his detention, and the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention in breach of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention.
On 18 June 2012 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of fraud. His arrest and further detention was authorised by the domestic courts a number of times with reference mainly to the seriousness of the crime the applicant was accused of, his possibility to flee from and hinder the investigation or continue with criminal activity. On 18 August 2014 the applicant’s detention was changed for house arrest. According to the applicant, he was kept handcuffed in a metal cage during the court hearings. On 12 May 2014 the domestic court refused his request to be released from the cage and to take his handcuffs off in view of the request being outside the court’s competence. In the course of the applicant’s detention he introduced a number of requests for release but to no avail.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage and his handcuffing during court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts)?
2. Did the decisions of the domestic courts ordering the applicant’s detention on remand and extending his further detention contain sufficient reasons to justify that detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 79‑81, 10 February 2011; and Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 40‑42, 15 December 2016)? Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Does the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention allegedly in contravention of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 79-82, 19 January 2012, and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy