Published on 8 September 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 52450/19
Sergiy Arutyunovich OVSEPYAN
against Ukraine
lodged on 25 September 2019
communicated on 20 August 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application principally concerns the lawfulness and justification of the applicant’s detention under Article 5 of the Convention.
According to the applicant, he was arrested and handcuffed by the police officers between 6.55 a.m. on 21 March 2019 and remained at his home without official registration of his detention until 1.30 p.m. of the same day while the search was being made by the investigator. A report which was drawn up after the search of his home had finished, indicated that the applicant was arrested at 1.30 p.m. on 21 March 2019. The next day, on 22 March 2019 at 1.01 p.m., he was served with a formal notification of suspicion of a large-scale drug related offence committed in a group. On 23 March 2019 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention referring to the gravity of charges, his unemployment and risks of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation and influencing witnesses. No further details to justify his detention were provided. The court furthermore set bail at approximately 10,000,000 euros (EUR). On 25 April 2019 the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The courts of both instances did not address the applicant’s complaints that his detention by the police between 7 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on 21 March 2019 was not documented, that he should have been released 24 hours after his factual arrest since a notification of suspicion had not been served on him on time[1], and that the amount of bail was too high and unjustified. The applicant’s detention was extended a number of times for similar reasons, and the bail amount was progressively reduced to approximately EUR 1,700,000. On 15 January 2020 the applicant was released on personal commitment.
The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that:
- he was detained between 6.55 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on 21 March 2019 without this fact being officially documented (Article 5 § 1);
- he was unlawfully detained upon expiration of 24 hours from his arrest without a notification of suspicion being served on him since the domestic law obliged the authorities to release a person if he/she was not served with a notification of suspicion upon expiration of the above-mentioned time-limit (Article 5 § 1);
- his detention was unjustified and lengthy, and that the amount of bail set by the courts was too high (Article 5 § 3);
- the courts failed to address his complaints regarding his unlawful detention (Article 5 § 4);
- he did not have an enforceable right to compensation for the above mentioned alleged violations (Article 5 § 5).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as regards the period between 6.55 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on 21 March 2019? In particular, was the applicant’s detention in that period recorded by the authorities?
2. Was the applicant’s detention without a notification of suspicion being served on him 24 hours after his arrest compatible with the “lawfulness” requirement within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
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); Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 34‑37, 15 December 2016 and Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, §§ 159‑181, 4 July 2019)? Was it compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement as provided by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Was the amount of bail set in accordance with the above provision (see Mangouras v. Spain [GC], no. 12050/04, §§ 78-81, ECHR 2010)?
4. 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 Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, §§ 97-110, 28 October 2010 and, in contrast, Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine, nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, §§ 121-26, 16 September 2022)?
5. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 32-37, 23 May 2024)?
[1] Article 278 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a notification of suspicion shall be served on an arrested person no later than 24 hours after his/her arrest. Article 278 § 3 provides that an arrested person shall be immediately released if he/she was not served a notification of suspicion 24 hours after his/her arrest.