CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 2025

.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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 37327/21 Oleksandr Volodymyrovych OLIYNYK against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the unreasonable length of their pre-trial detention are inadmissible. In respect of application no. 37327/21, the Government argued that on 22   September 2020 the applicant had been convicted. The applicant has failed to address that issue in his observations in reply. The Court reiterates that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained “for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence”, as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty “after conviction by a competent court” (see   Kudła v.   Poland   [GC], no. 30210/96, §   104, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and   Panchenko v. Russia , no.   45100/98, §   93, 8   February 2005). Accordingly, the applicant’s detention after 20 September 2020 cannot be considered for the purposes of Article 5 § 3. Therefore, his complaints raised with the Court in the application on 20 July 2021 have been lodged belatedly. In respect of the remaining applicants, the Court notes that there were sufficient grounds for their initial detention, as well as for its subsequent prolongations in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion of having committed serious offences, as well as due to the risks that the applicants might evade investigation, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses and reoffend. The Court therefore finds that the detention of these applicants was based on relevant and sufficient grounds. It also does not observe any delays on the part of the authorities while dealing with the applicants’ detention (see Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02, §§ 72-73, 20 September 2012; Sopin v.   Russia , no. 57319/10, §§ 38, 43-45, 18 December 2012; Merčep v. Croatia , no. 12301/12, § 96, 26 April 2016; and Štvrtecký v. Slovakia , no. 55844/12, § 58, 5 June 2018). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded. The applications must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 1,   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 23 October 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   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     37327/21 20/07/2021 Oleksandr Volodymyrovych OLIYNYK 1977   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges 04/04/2020 to 22/09/2020 5 month(s) and 19 day(s)       6072/24 12/02/2024 Andriy Pavlovych MROCHKO 2000   Kolyesnik Bogdan Volodymyrovych Ratne 29/06/2022 to 22/11/2022;   19/09/2023 to 20/03/2024 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)       6 month(s)     10330/24 25/03/2024 Volodymyr Volodymyrovych DANYLCHENKO 1986   Bondarenko Igor Valeriyovych Kyiv 27/02/2023 to 11/06/2024 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)       30939/24 07/10/2024 Valeriy Vasylyovych KRAVCHENKO 1982   Kazarnovskyy Oleksandr Lvovych Odesa 09/02/2023 to 18/11/2024 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)