Communicated on 3 December 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 23312/15
Olena Volodymyrivna ISTOMINA
against Ukraine
lodged on 15 May 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Olena Volodymyrivna Istomina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk. She is represented before the Court by Mr S.V. Karchagin, a lawyer practising in Dnipropetrovsk.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In February and March 2015 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion, involvement in a sham business, and forgery of documents. The investigator estimated that those crimes had caused damage amounting to more than 16 million[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“the UAH”).
On 21 March 2015 the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) decided to set bail for the applicant as a preventive measure. Having regard to the gravity of charges and the amount of damage allegedly caused, the court set bail at UAH 12,249,426[2].
On 25 March 2015 the applicant asked the District Court to change the preventive measure from bail to house arrest, arguing that the amount of bail was excessive.
On 6 April 2015 the District Court rejected the request as unfounded. Subsequently, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld that court decision as lawful and substantiated.
On 7 April 2015 the District Court found that the applicant had failed to produce the funds for her bail and had therefore breached the preventive measure decided on 21 March 2015. Given these circumstances, it decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. As an alternative preventive measure, it maintained her bail at the same amount.
The applicant appealed, arguing that there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting her of any crime and that the District Court had not taken into account her family situation and her level of income.
On 17 April 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision. It noted that the applicant had failed to pay the bail; there was a risk that the applicant could influence witnesses and, in particular, subordinate people involved in her business activities; there was also a risk that the applicant might abscond, given the gravity of the charges. The Court of Appeal observed that there had been nothing apparent in her family situation which would demand any reassessment of the preventive measures. At the applicant’s request, it examined the applicant’s medical file and found no indication that she should not be held in custody for health reasons. The Court of Appeal lastly found that there was sufficient material in the criminal case file to substantiate the suspicions against her.
On 15 May 2015 the District Court rejected as unfounded a further request from the applicant to change the preventive measure from pre-trial detention to house arrest.
The applicant appealed.
On 22 May 2015 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 15 May 2015. It noted that the amount of bail had been determined properly in view of the amount of the damage allegedly caused; the risks justifying the preventive measure had neither diminished nor disappeared; the applicant had been provided with medical assistance in pre-trial detention and her family or personal situation could not justify the modification of the preventive measure.
On 17 July 2015 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 15 September 2015. As an alternative preventive measure, it maintained her bail in the same amount.
The applicant appealed.
On 29 July 2015 the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s further detention had not been justified. It therefore quashed the decision of 17 July 2015 and placed the applicant under house arrest, ordering that she should stay in her dwelling from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. every day.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention that the court decisions ordering, extending or maintaining her pre-trial detention were unsubstantiated and were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. She argues that the bail was excessive and the courts did not examine the applicant’s ability to pay it.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention? Was the amount of bail determined in accordance with these provisions?
The Government are requested to provide all the court decisions concerning the preventive measures applied to the applicant during the period from 7 April to 29 July 2015.
[1] About EUR 647,000
[2] About EUR 495,191
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy