CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s21BC45A3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sEA788D2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s4B56455 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sF5DBAEA1 { width:151.27pt; 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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF KHUDOBETS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 7190/19)           JUDGMENT           STRASBOURG 5 December 2019     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khudobets v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 November 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 January 2019. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr O.A. Ignatov, a lawyer practising in Dnipro. 3.     The Ukrainian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, which reads 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 applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The applicant 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 Strogan v.   Ukraine (no. 30198/11, § 105-110, 6 October 2016). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ignatov v. Ukraine, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. 14.     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, Declares the application admissible; Holds that it discloses a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 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); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted 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 amount 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 5 December 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer 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’s name Date of birth 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] 7190/19 21/01/2019 Oleksiy Borysovych KHUDOBETS 29/07/1985 19/10/2014 to 26/10/2018 4 years and 8 days   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: from 19/10/2014 and pending at two levels of jurisdiction;   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention: no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system, see Strogan v.   Ukraine , no. 30198/11, § 105-110, 6   October 2016 3,200     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.