Communicated on 26 June 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 63147/13
Yuriy Sergeyevich MELNIK
against Ukraine
lodged on 3 September 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Sergeyevich Melnik, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1983.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 December 2011 the investigator of the Novoukrayinka District Police Department arrested the applicant on suspicion of having robbed, together with two accomplices, two women walking in a street on 17 December 2011.
Following the arrest, the investigator applied to the Novoukrayinka District Court (“the first-instance court”) with a request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention.
On 21 December 2011 the first-instance court, relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, found that in order to make a decision on the application of a preventive measure it required more information concerning the applicant’s personality as well as information on his earlier convictions and his state of health. The court therefore ordered that the investigator produce that information and extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days.
On 28 December 2011 the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months. The court stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime and that he had been convicted previously. It concluded that the applicant might reoffend and attempt to impede the investigation, if at liberty.
On 19 January 2012 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 28 December 2011, taking into account of the gravity of the charge and the applicant’s previous convictions.
On an unspecified date the criminal case was referred to the first-instance court for trial.
On 29 May 2012 the first-instance court remitted the case for additional investigation, stating that certain investigating measures in respect of the applicant’s accomplice had not been conducted in conformity with procedural requirements and the charge against him had to be specified in more detail.
On 31 July 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 29 May 2012. It also dismissed the applicant’s request for release and maintained his detention in custody as preventive measure.
On 15 April 2013, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012, the applicant was informed that he was suspected of the robbery committed on 17 December 2011. He was additionally informed that he was suspected of forgery of a passport.
On 23 April 2013 the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 15 April to 14 June 2013. Taking into account the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the possible penalties which he faced, the court concluded that risks existed which necessitated the applicant’s detention in custody.
On 17 May 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 23 April 2013 on the ground that the applicant’s lawyer had been absent from the hearing. It therefore considered the issue of the applicant’s pre-trial detention anew in the presence of the lawyer. It found that the applicant was reasonably suspected of robbery and forgery of a passport. In that regard the Court of Appeal noted that the victim had identified the applicant as the person who had committed the robbery and the stolen personal belongings had been seized from the applicant. The Court of Appeal then stated that the applicant faced serious punishment, he had been unemployed and he had been repeatedly convicted of crimes against property, including violent crimes; furthermore, the applicant was charged with crime committed by a group of individuals which suggested that he maintained connections with individuals with criminal tendencies. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant had committed the alleged robbery two months after his release from prison. It lastly stated that the applicant had not referred to any reliable individual who could give a personal guarantee to ensure his proper conduct in the criminal proceedings; neither the applicant, nor his family had funds for bail. Having assessed these circumstances, the Court of Appeal found that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond and impede the criminal proceedings and that the pre-trial detention was the only appropriate preventive measure for the applicant even though he had certain health issues. The Court of Appeal reordered the applicant’s detention from 15 April to 14 June 2013.
On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the first-instance court for trial.
On 30 July 2013 the first-instance court held a preparatory hearing and decided to remit the case for additional investigation noting that the case file and the bill of indictment had not been prepared properly. The court also extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
On 2 August 2013 the first-instance court specified in its ruling that by decision of 30 July 2013 the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been extended from 30 July 2013 to 29 September 2013.
On 27 September 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 30 July 2013 and ordered the first-instance court to conduct the trial. As to the preventive measure, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had been charged of serious crimes, he had been previously convicted and he was unemployed. The Court of Appeal concluded that, if released, the applicant could reoffend, abscond or impede the criminal proceedings. It decided to extend the applicant’s detention in custody until 26 November 2013.
On 25 November 2013 the first-instance court extended the applicant’s detention in custody until 24 January 2014.
On 16 January 2014 the Dobrovelychkivka District Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention in custody until 24 March 2014 for the reason that the trial had not been finished; in particular, the witnesses had not been questioned and the written evidence had not been examined.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that between 15 and 23 April 2013 he had been detained without a valid court decision.
2. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the court decisions concerning his pre-trial detention were not based on the relevant and sufficient reasons.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s detention between 15 and 23 April 2013 compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant’s detention in custody between December 2011 and January 2014 based on relevant and sufficient reasons as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide copies of all the decisions of the domestic authorities concerning the preventive measures applied to the applicant in the abovementioned period.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy