CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 CASE OF PADAGUTS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 62818/16)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Padaguts v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting 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.   62818/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 October 2016 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Ivan Andriyovych Padaguts (“the applicant”), who   was born in 1995. He was in detention in Dnipro at the time the   application was lodged and was represented by Mr   S.M.   Dovgal, a lawyer practising in Dnipro; the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M.   Sokorenko; the parties’ observations;   Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s complaint, raised in substance under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention, of a breach of procedural guarantees during proceedings concerning the extension of his pre-trial detention. 2.     Since 4 March 2015 the applicant has been in detention on suspicion of robbery and murder committed as part of a group. His detention has been extended by the court a number of times. In particular, on 24 May 2016, the   Ordzhonikidze Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region (“the   Local   Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 4.30 p.m. on 23   July 2016. 3 .     According to the information provided by the Government, on 23   July   2016 at noon, the Local Court, in the absence of the suspects and their defence lawyers, scheduled a hearing to be conducted by videolink on the   same day at 4.30 p.m. The Local Court’s registry sent an SMS message to the applicant’s defence lawyer informing him of the date and time of the   hearing. The Government submitted that the SMS message had been delivered to the applicant’s representative on 25 July 2016 at 4.27 p.m. 4.     The Government furthermore submitted that the applicant had refused to participate in the above-mentioned hearing. No reasons for that refusal had been provided. 5.     On 23 July 2016 the Local Court held a hearing during which it extended the applicant’s detention until 21 September 2016. The Local Court indicated in its decision that the applicant had refused to participate in the   hearing via videolink and that his defence lawyer had refused to appear at the hearing, although he had been properly informed of its date and time. The   Local Court made its decision after it had heard the prosecutor present his arguments in favour of the applicant’s detention. The court referred to the   gravity of the charges against the applicant, including the charges regarding a crime for which the applicant could be sentenced to life imprisonment. The   Local Court also stated – without substantiating the claim – that the application of alternative, less intrusive, preventive measures would not have prevented the applicant from absconding and influencing witnesses, suspects and other participants in the proceedings. The decision of the Local Court was not amenable to appeal. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded and invited the Court to declare it inadmissible. The   Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the   meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 7.     The applicant maintained his complaint as originally raised in the   application form. In particular, he stated that he had objected to the   holding of a hearing via videolink without the participation of his defence lawyer; that his lawyer had not been informed of the date and time of the   hearing; that the lawyer’s participation in the proceedings had been mandatory given the severity of the crimes of which he had been accused; and that the premises of the detention facility where he was detained had not been equipped to ensure his participation in the hearing via videolink. 8.     The Government submitted that the Local Court had provided the   applicant with the guarantees under Article 5 § 4. The applicant had been given the opportunity to participate in the court hearing, but he had refused, without providing an explanation. The Government further argued that the   applicant’s lawyer had failed to appear before the Local Court on 23   July   2016 without any explanation, and that the trial court had decided to hold a hearing without the lawyer being present in view of the need to consider the issue of the applicant’s detention, given the gravity of the charges against him. 9.     The general principles concerning the procedural guarantees in detention proceedings can be found in A. and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no.   3455/05, §§ 203-204, ECHR 2009, with further references). In   particular, the Court emphasises that the opportunity for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty ( Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, § 161, 22 May 2012). Equality is not ensured if the public prosecutor is allowed to make oral submissions during the review proceedings while the detained person, or his or her lawyer, is denied this opportunity (see, for instance, Samoilă and Cionca v. Romania , no.   33065/03, §§ 74 and 76, 4   March 2008). 10.     The Court takes note of the parties’ agreement that the charges against the applicant were grave and could have resulted in the applicant being sentenced to life imprisonment. In view of this fact the authorities were under an obligation to provide the applicant with a defence lawyer during the   proceedings concerning the extension of his detention, as required by   Article   52 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulating that participation of a defence lawyer is mandatory in criminal proceedings relating to particularly grave crimes. 11.     The Court observes in this connection that the applicant’s refusal to participate in the hearing of 23 July 2016 did not absolve the authorities from their obligations under Article 5 § 4 to ensure the participation of the   applicant’s defence lawyer in the above-mentioned hearing. 12.     The Court notes in this regard that the Local Court decided to schedule a hearing without the applicant or his defence lawyer being present (see   paragraph 3 above). Having regard to the fact that the applicant’s lawyer, according to the Government, had been notified about the court hearing only on 25 July 2016 (ibid.), it remains unexplained how the lawyer could have been present at the hearing which had been scheduled for 23 July 2016 at 4.30   p.m. 13.     Lastly, the Court observes that the decision to hold a hearing on the   extension of the applicant’s detention was taken on the last day of the   validity of the previous court decision on his detention. According to the   applicant it was taken on a Saturday, a non-business day in Ukraine. These   circumstances, as well as the fact that the hearing was held less than five hours after it had been scheduled and the Government’s failure to provide any further explanation on the matter, raise doubts as to whether the   Local   Court ensured that the parties to the proceedings had been properly notified of the time of the hearing or whether the absence of the applicant’s defence lawyer from the hearing was due to his deliberate failure to appear. 14.     The Court also reiterates that the Convention requires Contracting States to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to comply with its various requirements. In the context of Article 5, although it is incumbent on the judicial authorities to make the necessary administrative arrangements to ensure that urgent matters are dealt with speedily, and this is particularly necessary when the individual’s personal liberty is at stake (see, for example,   S.T.S. v. the Netherlands , no. 277/05, § 48, ECHR 2011), such administrative arrangements should not impair the very essence of the Convention guarantees. 15.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant was not provided with the full range of procedural guarantees in connection with the extension of his detention, and in particular that his lawyer was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the extension hearing on 23 July 2016, contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. There   has   accordingly been a violation of that provision. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the authorities’ failure to inform the applicant’s defence lawyer of the hearing of 23 July 2016 regarding the extension of the applicant’s detention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Martina Keller   Lado Chanturia   Deputy Registrar   President