CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 octobre 2023

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4C358D82 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6E0F97D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBEF37598 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 47320/15 Volodymyr Oleksiyovych BEZOBRAZOV against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   October 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President ,   Lado Chanturia,   María Elósegui , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1   September 2015, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr   A.V.   Karkishchenko, a lawyer practising in Odesa, Ukraine. The applicant’s complaints under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Articles 5 § 3 of the Convention (lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it and considering the duration of the applicant’s detention and other circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the domestic courts gave relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s detention. In particular, the Court notes that, when deciding on the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention, the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in a crime, the existence of risks of his absconding and obstructing the investigation, the gravity of charges and the severity of potential punishment. The criminal offence incriminated to the applicant was related to his cooperation with illegal armed groups supported by Russia and operating in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, which significantly increased the risk of absconding from justice. The trial courts took also into account that the applicant was a Russian citizen, had no permanent place of residence and work in Ukraine, temporarily resided in Kharkiv, a city bordering Russia, so he could leave the territory of Ukraine without any particular difficulties . The Court is prepared to accept that the above circumstances could reasonably constitute sufficient grounds justifying the applicant’s pre-trial detention for less than four months (see Titarenko v.   Ukraine, no.   31720/02, §§   72-73, 20 September 2012 ; Sopin v.   Russia , no.   57319/10, §§   38, 43-45, 18   December   2012; and Nenad Kovačević v.   Croatia , no. 38415/13, §§ 59, 65-69, 24 November 2015). 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. Remaining complaints The applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 November 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   5 § 3 of the Convention (lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal 47320/15 01/09/2015 Volodymyr Oleksiyovych BEZOBRAZOV 1979 Karkishchenko Andriy Volodymyrovych Odesa from 11/11/2014 to 06/03/2015 Ovidiopol District Court of Odessa Region