CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s55FDF252 { width:190.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4C217699 { width:3.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC057C172 { width:10.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE560311C { width:19.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD080128 { width:12.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sF5FFF54 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6835B238 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s690157E3 { width:19.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2BE383EF { width:10.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s616D4F10 { width:3.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s49404635 { width:10.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B103A6C { width:19.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s270287DB { width:12.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s97DF9F40 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB145D406 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1012E5E4 { width:19.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E4C2164 { width:10.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 48759/06 and 10 others - see appended list )                         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG     8 February 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   André Potocki, President,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5   §   3 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 5   §   3 “3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 7.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 8.     In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10   February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The applicants in application nos. 48759/06, 20960/08, 53425/11, 24954/12, 35621/13, 54335/13, 73537/13 and 18073/15 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine , (no.   66561/01, 30 March 2004), and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above). IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no. 20960/08, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It however makes no award in respect of the applicant in application no. 48759/06 who failed to respond to the Court’s invitation to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. 16.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of application no. 20960/08 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted, except for the amount in application no. 20960/08, into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   André Potocki Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     48759/06 03/11/2006 Boris Vladimirovich Ivanov 12/08/1955   24/12/2003 to 18/12/2006 2 years, 11 months and 25 days Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention 0     20960/08 14/04/2008 Vasyl Georgiyovych Nazarevych 13/04/1957   21/03/2006 to 25/12/2007   27/03/2008 to 04/11/2009   08/06/2010 to 20/07/2011 1 year, 9 months and 5 days   1 year, 7 months and 9 days   1 year, 1 month and 13 days Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: around 7 years and 1 month before 3 instances     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 3,600     53425/11 16/08/2011 Vladislav Filippovich Zakordonets 20/08/1967 Arkadiy Petrovich Bushchenko Kyiv 13/10/2010 to 18/07/2012 1 year, 9 months and 6 days Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention : the courts disregarded the applicant’s arguments as to necessity to change the preventive measure   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention: no enforceable right to compensation. 2,000     24954/12 11/04/2012 Vyacheslav Grygorovych Medvynskyy 25/07/1975 Vadym Anatoliyovych Korotych Kirovograd 05/03/2009 to 17/12/2012 3 years, 9 months and 13 days Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: criminal proceedings have been pending before two judicial instances for at least 6 years 3,100     35621/13 27/05/2013 Andriy Vyacheslavovych Shkolyar 13/09/1981   08/04/2010 to 03/04/2013 2 years, 11 months and 27 days Art. 5 (1) (c) - lawful arrest or detention/reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence: the applicant was held without court’s decision from 08/09/2010 till 27/09/2010, while the case was considered by the court, decisions concerning the applicant’s detention did not indicate any time-limits   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: During the proceedings the applicant lodged numerous requests for release under obligation not to abscond, that were rejected without his arguments being properly examined, the request of 06/08/2012 was considered by the court after almost one month. 5,900     54335/13 06/08/2013 Konstantin Vasilyevich Voloshin 07/01/1981   30/11/2011 to 11/04/2014 2 years, 4 months and 13 days Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: lack of reasoning in judicial decisions ordering the applicant’s arrest and continued detention, courts’ failure to consider any other alternative measures   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: the Krasnogvardiyskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk in its ruling of 30/12/2013 failed to address the applicant’s arguments advanced in his request for release. 5,900     65401/13 30/09/2013 Vasiliy Ivanovich Nedelko 22/02/1971   01/03/2012 to 03/09/2013   18/02/2014 to 06/11/2014 1 year, 6 months and 3 days     8 months and 20 days   1,400     73537/13 05/11/2013 Denis Igorevich Zgurskiy 09/07/1991 Taisa Ivanovna Zgurskaya Dnipropetrovsk 23/11/2011 to 01/08/2012   25/10/2012 to 31/03/2013 8 months and 10 days     5 months and 7 days Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: the applicant complains that when extending his detention the first instance court (in its rulings of 19/02/2013 and 02/04/2013) failed to provide reasons for his detention, in particular, the question of ‘reasonable suspicion’ was not addressed, respective evidence was not analysed.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: the applicant complains that the arguments raised in his plea regarding substitution of detention with an alternative preventive measure (considered by the first instance court on 19/02/2013) were not addressed by the domestic courts   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention 5,900     27839/14 30/03/2014 Bogdan Mykhaylovych Reut 12/08/1985   01/08/2011 to 30/10/2013 2 years, 2 months and 30 days   1,400   18073/15 03/04/2015 Sergiy Anatoliyovych Shyshkov 01/05/1976   13/02/2013 pending More than 4 years and 10 months Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: the applicant complains that when extending his detention, the first instance court failed to give reasons for his continued detention   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: criminal proceedings against the applicant started on 13/02/2013 (supported by the presented documents) and are pending before the first instance court. The length of almost 5 years before one judicial instance is excessive. 5,900   21737/17 16/03/2017 Aleksandr Anatolyevich Tishyna 03/07/1970 Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg 21/05/2015 to 15/03/2017 1 year, 9 months and 23 days   1,200     [1]     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.