FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 50165/06
by Oleksandr Vasylyovych LYGUN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Vasylyovych Lygun, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in the Zaporizhzhya Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 July 2001 the police detained the applicant and instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of murder.
On 16 July 2001 the Vesele Court ordered the applicant’s ten days’ administrative arrest, starting from 14 July 2001, as he resisted apprehension. It appears from the case file that during the administrative arrest the police carried out certain investigatory actions with the applicant in connection with the incriminated murder without participation of his lawyer, who was admitted to the proceedings on 25 July 2001.
According to the applicant, unspecified police officers tortured him during the detention in order to get his confession. It appears from the case file that the applicant requested the local prosecutors to institute criminal proceedings against those officers. The applicant has not provided any information as to the outcome of consideration of his request.
It also appears from the case file that the local prosecutors lodged a protest against the resolution of 16 July 2001. The applicant has not provided any information as to the outcome of its consideration either.
The applicant subsequently remained in detention until 12 February 2002, when he was released on undertaking not to abscond.
On 9 July 2003 the Melitopol Court found that the applicant’s right to defence was breached as during the administrative arrest the police carried out investigative actions with him in connection with the incriminated murder without participation of his lawyer and remitted the case for additional investigation.
In December 2003, following additional investigation, the case was referred back to the same court, which on 7 April 2005 found the applicant guilty of involuntary homicide, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and amnestied him.
It appears from the case file that on 29 June 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Melitopol Court, which on 5 October 2006 sent the case for additional investigation.
On 3 March 2007 the police discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of evidence against him.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was unreasonable.
He also complains under Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 – 5 and 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (c) of the Convention, respectively, that unspecified police officers tortured him during the detention, his administrative arrest and his subsequent detention until 12 February 2002 were unlawful and the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him was unfavourable and that during the administrative arrest the police carried out investigatory actions without involvement of his lawyer.
THE LAW
A. The length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant
The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. Other complaints
The Court, having examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy