CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 février 2020

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .sEA788D2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s61749269 { width:142.77pt; display:inline-block } .s316B63AF { width:152.73pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 YELNIK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 10444/13)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 February 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yelnik 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 16 January 2020, 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 29 January 2013. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. The applicant also raised another complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 5.     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.” 6.     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). 7.     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. 8.     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. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     The applicant submitted another complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case ‑ law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine (no.   66561/01, 30 March 2004). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     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. 13.     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 Article 6 § 1of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under the 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; (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 6 February 2020, 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] 10444/13 29/01/2013 Andrey Aleksandrovich YELNIK 06/04/1987 24/09/2008 to 21/05/2010   29/03/2012 to 12/03/2013 1 year, 7 months and 28 days     11 months and 13 days   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings:   from 24/09/2008 to 20/08/2013 4 years, 10 months and 26 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   2,200     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.