Published on 31 May 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 60833/15
Oleksandr Yuriyovych SHCHEGOLYEV
against Ukraine
lodged on 30 November 2015
communicated on 10 May 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions ordering and extending his detention, and that his detention was therefore unreasonably long. The application furthermore concerns the applicant’s allegations under the same provision that the courts refused to set bail as a preventive measure. Lastly, the application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings against him are unreasonably long.
On 3 March 2015, within the framework of the criminal investigation into the Maidan events in Kyiv (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, 21 January 2021), the applicant, a Security Service officer at the material time, was formally notified that he was suspected of having used excessive power. On 12 March 2015 the court applied a night house arrest to him.
On 20 August 2015 the applicant was formally notified of the modification of the level of suspicion against him when the scope of the charges against him was extended – more charges, in particular murder charges, were added to the investigation. On the basis of new charges, on 20 August 2015 the applicant was arrested and on 21 August 2015 the Kyiv Pecherskyi District Court ordered his detention, noting as the reasons for detention the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding and influencing other participants in the proceedings. The applicant’s detention was extended by the courts a number of times with reference to the reasons previously mentioned. When making a decision on the applicant’s detention the courts referred to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which did not allow the courts to set bail in such circumstances.
On 20 June 2019 the applicant’s detention was altered to a twenty-four hour house arrest which was further changed to personal commitment on 25 October 2019. As of today, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending at the trial court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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? Was the courts’ refusal to set bail compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 116-30, 17 September 2020)?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy