CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .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 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s539148BA { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s562DAB76 { width:148.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17841/17 Yuriy Aleksandrovich LYSENKO against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   17841/17) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 13 August 2015 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Yuriy Aleksandrovich Lysenko (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Dnipropetrovsk and was represented by Ms   I.K. Yevstafyeva, a lawyer practising in Dnipro; the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, most recently Ms   M.   Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present application concerns the lengthy criminal proceedings against the applicant and an allegedly unjustified retention by the law ‑ enforcement authorities of the applicant’s personal documents (in particular, his passport, diplomas and a driver’s license) seized on 15   December   2011 following a search within the framework of the above proceedings. It raises issues under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. 2.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant, which concerned allegations of corruption, lasted from 13 December 2011 until 9 February 2015 for one level of jurisdiction and were eventually discontinued on the ground that there was insufficient corroborating evidence against the applicant. 3.     On numerous occasions the applicant unsuccessfully requested the law ‑ enforcement authorities to return his personal documents. On 11 June 2015 he obtained a court ruling obliging the prosecutor’s office to address his requests. The personal documents, except for the passport, were returned to the applicant in September   2015. The applicant’s passport was never returned to him, apparently having been lost by the authorities. On 4   February 2015, after declaring his passport as lost and paying a fine, the applicant was issued with a new passport. 4.     According to the information provided by the Government in their observations of 25 April 2023 and confirmed by the applicant in his observations in reply, on 18 December 2019 the Supreme Court, by a final decision delivered in the compensation proceedings brought by the applicant in December 2017, awarded the applicant 135,800.94 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (approximately 3,520 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage (loss of income) caused by his criminal persecution and UAH 500,000 (about EUR 12,950) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As the text of the judgment provided by the Government to the Court indicates, the latter sum covered the duration of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the suffering caused to him, including the considerable efforts he had to make to restore and organise his life and health and to obtain the return of his seized belongings, including his passport. It follows from the applicant’s submissions that the award was paid to him. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 5.     The Government submitted that the application should be considered inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had abused his right of petition by failing to inform the Court that he had been awarded compensation in respect of the complaints which had been the subject of the proceedings before the Court. As the applicant’s complaints had been resolved within the national system, in accordance with the rule of subsidiarity, the applicant had lost his victim status. They argued that the application should be rejected pursuant to the Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. 6.     The applicant argued that he had never intended to mislead the Court and that he would have provided information to the Court had he been informed by the latter of the exact date of the examination of the case. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to him was insufficient and much lower than that awarded to his superior who was accused of the same offence and whose case was closed on the same grounds as his own. 7.     The Court reiterates that if new and important developments occur during the proceedings before the Court and if – despite the express obligation on him or her under the Rules – the applicant fails to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts, his or her application may be rejected as being an abuse of application (see   Predescu v. Romania , no.   21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2   December 2008). Importantly, failure to inform the Court of relevant factual circumstances may amount to abuse of the right of individual petition, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see   Gross v. Switzerland   [GC], no.   67810/10 , § 28, ECHR 2014;   Buzinger v.   Slovakia   (dec.), no.   32133/10, §§ 16-25, 16 June 2015). 8.     In the present case, the application was lodged with the Court on 13   August   2015. Subsequently, in December 2019, the domestic courts awarded the applicant a total of approximately EUR 16,500 in compensation for the violations of his rights which occurred in the context of the criminal proceedings which are the basis of the present application. The case was communicated to the respondent Government 30 August 2021, that is a year and a half after the delivery of its judgment by the Supreme Court. At no point did the applicant inform the Court that he had been awarded and paid the compensation while this development concerned the very core of its application to the Court and was crucial for the assessment of its admissibility and merits. No plausible explanation has been furnished for his failure to inform the Court about the compensation proceedings instituted by him and its outcome (compare Demirtaş v. Türkiye (dec.), no. 4592/12, 13 September 2022). 9.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Government’s objection is well-founded and that the present application constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 §   3   (a) in fine of the Convention . It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2024.     Martina Keller   Lado Chanturia   Deputy Registrar   President