Communicated on 18 January 2021
Published on 8 February 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 22194/18
Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK against Ukraine
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicants’ allegations under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about unjustified continued detention after the relevant grounds for that detention ceased to exist. Relevant details of applications are indicated in the appendix.
The applicant in application no. 22194/18 also complains that the Supreme Court, when quashing the applicant’s conviction on 9 October 2017 and remitting the case for re-trial, failed to provide reasons for the applicant’s detention and did not set a time-limit for that detention which lasted until 23 March 2018, when the trial court ordered the applicant’s release. He furthermore complains under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention that he did not have a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention as well as an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS
Were the applicants deprived of their liberty, after the relevant reasons for their detention had ceased to exist, as indicated in the appendix, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 67-70, 4 June 2015)?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 22194/18
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty from 9 October 2017 to 23 March 2018 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision of the Supreme Court of 9 October 2017 maintaining his continued detention on remand without indicating reasons of that detention and setting a time-limit on it compatible with the requirements of that Article (see Kondratyev v. Ukraine, no. 5203/09, §§ 109-112, 15 December 2011)?
2. 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 (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011)?
3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 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)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Reason for the applicant’s release
Due date of the applicant’s release
Date of the applicant’s actual release
Other complaints to be communicated
1
22194/18
23/04/2018
Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK
1968
Nikopol
Ukrainian
Iryna Anatoliyivna BOYKOVA
Decision of the Desnyanskyi District Court of Kyiv of 23/03/2018 ordering the applicant’s release
23/03/2018
03/04/2018
Article 5 § 1 – unlawful detention from 9 October 2017 to 23 March 2018;
Article 5 § 4 – lack of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention;
Article 5 § 5 – absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1, as required by Article 5 § 5
2
40232/19
22/07/2019
Vitaliy Grygorovych DYSHUK
1978
Poltava
Ukrainian
Tamila Sergiyivna BESPALA
Decision of the Petrivskyi Local Court of Kirovograd Region of 22/03/2019 recalculating the applicant’s prison term
(became final on 15/04/2019)
15/04/2019
22/04/2019
3
14665/20
27/02/2020
Vasyl Mykhaylovych GOYZAN
1994
Dubrynychi
Ukrainian
Igor Mykhaylovych SHKORKA
Decision of the Zakarpattyta Court of Appeal taken at 11.35 am of 29/08/2019 quashing the applicant’s detention ordered by the lower court
29/08/2019
30/08/2019 at 6.42 pm
4
19068/20
28/02/2020
Petro Petrovych NIKOLAYENKO
1984
Gomel
Belarusian
Dmytro Viktorovych YAGUNOV
Decision of the Odessa Court of Appeal of 06/02/2020 ordering the applicant’s early release
06/02/2020
07/02/2020 at 6.27 pm
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy