FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 44704/11
Vladyslav Mykolayovych POPOVYCH
against Ukraine
lodged on 16 July 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladyslav Mykolayovych Popovych, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Nizhyn. He was represented before the Court by Mr O.V. Zarutskyy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 April 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of extortion.
On 16 April 2010 the Nizhynskyy Local Court ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds that he was suspected of committing a serious crime, that he might interfere with justice, or might abscond and continue his criminal activities.
On 9 June 2010 the same court extended the applicant’s detention to four months.
On 11 August 2010 the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention to six months – until 13 October 2010.
On 22 September 2010 the pre-trial investigation was completed.
On 23 September the applicant and his lawyer started studying the case-file materials.
On 29 September 2010 the investigation referred the applicant’s case to the Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv.
On 19 October 2010 the above court held a committal hearing and scheduled the case for examination on 4 November 2010. In its decision to commit the applicant to trial, the court noted that there were no grounds for replacing his detention by a different preventive measure.
During the trial, which is apparently still pending before the first-instance court, the applicant made several requests for his immediate release and for the trial judge to be replaced. All his requests were rejected.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his pre-trial detention has been unlawful since 13 October 2010, when the period of his detention ordered by the court expired, and no new detention order was given. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the trial court, with competence to release him in case of unlawful detention, failed to do so. Furthermore, he is unable to complain of the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial to anyone other than the same judge who examines his case and who has not previously reacted to the unlawfulness of his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has his deprivation of liberty been lawful since 13 October 2010?
2. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he can challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy