Published on 20 December 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 33279/16
Yevgeniy Igorevich MEFEDOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 5 June 2016
communicated on 3 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s complaints related to the alleged breach of his right to liberty in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. On 6 May 2014 the local court ordered the applicant’s detention in the context of the investigation into mass disorders which took place in Odessa on 2 May 2014. The reasons for his detention were the gravity of the charges, the risk of his absconding and hindering the investigation or continuing with his criminal activities and influencing other participants in the proceedings. The applicant’s detention was extended by the courts a number of times with reference to similar reasons.
On 26 March 2015, at the preparatory hearing, the Malynovskyi District Court of Odessa acting as trial court, in the absence of a request from the prosecution, maintained the applicant’s detention without providing any reasons for that decision.
On 27 November 2015, in the course of the trial, the Malynovskyi District Court of Odessa, by its decision not amenable to appeal, extended the applicant’s detention and set bail as a condition for the applicant’s release. On 30 November 2015 the applicant paid the bail, but he was not released since on the same day the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal accepted the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of 27 November 2015 and suspended its enforcement. The applicant remained in detention.
On 22 August 2019 the trial court released the applicant on personal commitment.
Referring to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was unlawfully detained after he had paid bail on 30 November 2015, and that the Court of Appeal had no competence to accept the appeal against the court decision which was not amenable to appeal. Invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts, when ordering or extending his detention, did not provide sufficient reasoning for that detention, and that his detention was unreasonably long. Finally, referring to Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the decision of the Malynovskyi District Court of Odessa of 26 March 2015 which maintained the applicant’s continued detention on remand without providing relevant reasons (see Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 35-37, 15 December 2016)?
2. Did the 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure, which was applicable at the material time, provide for a possibility to appeal against the decision of the trial court regarding the suspect’s detention? What was the legal basis for the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal to accept, on 30 November 2015, the prosecutor’s appeal brought against the decision of the Malynovskyi District Court of Odessa of 27 November 2015 extending the applicant’s detention and setting bail? Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention due to authorities’ failure to release the applicant from detention after payment of bail, following the decision of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal of 30 November 2015 which suspended the enforcement of the decision of the Malynovskyi District Court of Odessa of 27 November 2015?
3. Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., ECHR 2016 (extracts) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 34‑37, 15 December 2016)? Was it compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement as provided by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013)?