CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STATOCHNYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 22118/17 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Statochnyuk and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. Some applicant raised the same complaint under other provisions of the Convention. The Court, however, considers that the applicants’ complaints fall to be examined only under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 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 applicants’ 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 applicants 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 the cases set out in the appended table. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts 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 28 November 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Period of detention Length of detention Specific defects House arrest Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     22118/17 15/03/2017 Nazar Andriyovych STATOCHNYUK 2000       21/08/2016 to 26/03/2019 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was held in a metal cage during the trial hearings on 09/02/2017, 15/02/2017 and 24/02/2017 ( Korban v.   Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 132-36, 4   July 2019) 2,200 -     24211/23 22/05/2023   AND   244/24 27/11/2023 Sergiy Grygorovych VERETELNYK 1983   Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Dnipro 25/03/2019 pending More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Since 05/09/2023 24-hour house arrest Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - from 16/08/2017 - pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v.   Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1   July 2021);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v.   Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§   67-79, 1 July 2021);   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article   5   § 3 of the Convention – no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 ( Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no.   49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no.   28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015);   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - Zaporizhzhia Pre-Trial Detention Facility 2.5-3.7 m² 27/03/2019 to 05/09/2023 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 10   day(s) overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell (see Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§ 165 and 167, 30   January 2020);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   165 and 167, 30   January 2020).   9,800 250     36375/23 17/09/2023 Samvel Zhorayovych MARTYROSYAN 1959   Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa 20/09/2019 pending More than 4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand Since 16/05/2023 24-hour house arrest Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - decision on deprivation of liberty without a time-limit - since 16/05/2023 - pending. On 15/05/2023 the appellate court changed the applicant’s preventive measure from pre-trial detention to 24-hour house arrest. The house arrest was ordered for the period of trial until the first-instance court delivers a verdict (no explicit date set). On 16/05/2023 the applicant was released from the Pte-Trial Detention Facility ( see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§ 74-76, 10   February 2011).   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeals against detention orders examined with delay ( Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011): (i) appeal submitted on 10/07/2020 – examined on 13/05/2021, (ii) submitted on 07/09/2020 – examined on 14/09/2022; (iii) submitted on 05/11/2020 – examined on 12/05/2021, (iv) submitted on 25/02/2021 – examined on 22/04/2021; (v) submitted on 05/07/2021 – examined on 05/08/2021; (vi) submitted on 11/07/2022 – examined on 04/08/2022; (vii) submitted on 29/08/2022 – examination pending; (viii) submitted on 13/10/2022 – examined on 27/02/2023; (ix) submitted on 08/12/2022 – examined on 20/06/2023.   3,900 250     36964/23 22/09/2023 Illya Vyacheslavovych ZAGALSKYY 1998   Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne 09/03/2017 to 17/11/2023 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 9 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed 09/03/2017-20/02/2019 24-hour house arrest Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings - from 13/02/2017 - 17/11/2023, 1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v.   Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1   July 2021);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v.   Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§   67-79, 1   July 2021).   3,900 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.