CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE18EEC1C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A71F16B { width:17.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sCB95FA7E { width:189.62pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32791/17 Roman Ivanovych GAPYEYEV against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5   July   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms O.O. Richko, residing in Kharkiv. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW   Complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention and reiterated set of reasoning in the decisions on continued pre-trial detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was reviewed and extended at regular intervals. It notes that the primary reasons cited by the courts were the real and serious risk of absconding and obstructing the investigation through contacts with the applicant’s former colleagues and subordinates. However, the domestic courts also took account of the conduct of the defence which they assessed as aiming at the protraction of the examination of the case. Thus, the Court finds that, even though the decisions on continued pre-trial detention contain a reiterated set of reasoning, in the circumstances of the case the risks, and in particular the risk of absconding and the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses, had not been abstract and had been assessed with sufficient scrutiny to justify the overall length of the continued detention of 1 year and 8 months (see, mutatis mutandis, Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02, §§ 73-74, 20 September 2012). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Period of detention   32791/17 25/04/2017   Roman Ivanovych Gapyeyev 28/04/1979   Olena Oleksandrivna Richko Kharkiv     06/04/2015 to 21/12/2016