CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 3 March 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22964/11 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich SIRENKO against Ukraine lodged on 1 April 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Sirenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Simferopol, Ukraine. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 15 January 2008 two sets of criminal proceedings were instituted for a violation of rules related to the protection of mineral resources and for abuse of power. On 8 February 2008 the applicant was charged with above crimes. In particular, he was accused of unauthorised occupation of a land plot and unlawful shell rock excavation. Since March 2008 the applicant had been subject to an undertaking not to abscond. In March 2009 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the ARC) about various allegedly unlawful actions of the Simferopol Local Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office ( Сімферопольська міжрайонна природоохоронна прокуратура ) and that certain private persons had attempted to occupy a land plot which belonged to the applicant. On 17 March 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC informed the applicant that his complaint had been received and that the prosecutor of the ARC would receive him on 24 March 2009 at 10:00 a.m. On 24 March 2009 the applicant was arrested by the Simferopol Local Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office in the premises of the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC. It was noted in his detention report that he could escape and hinder the investigation. On 25 March 2009 the Saky Town Police Office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the applicant’s complaints that an unknown person had occupied the applicant’s land plot and had removed the upper layer of soil. The police noted that it had no information about the amount of the damages inflicted. The final decision would be taken later. On 27 March 2009 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol extended the applicant’s detention until 7 April 2009 in order to check up whether he had any court records. This decision was not subject to appeal. On 1 April 2009 the applicant was charged with a violation of rules related to the protection of mineral resources, abuse of power and breach of duty to protect property, violation of business operation and banking procedures, and money laundering. On 3 April 2009 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court stated the following: “Given that the accused does not plead guilty, there are grounds to consider that he could obstruct the establishment of truth. Therefore, he should be placed in pre-trial detention.” On 14 April 2009 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the above decision. The court noted that the applicant was accused of committing a crime which is punishable with three years’ imprisonment, that after the institution of the criminal proceedings he had continued criminal activity, that he could escape, continue criminal activity and hinder the investigation. On 18 May 2009 the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the court for consideration on the merits. On 4 June 2009 the Sakskyy Town Court authorised further applicant’s detention. It noted that there were no reasons for the applicant’s release. On 10 and 23 July 2009 the same court rejected the applicant’s requests for release since he had committed a serious crime. On 24 September 2009 the Sakskyy Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him, inter alia , to five years and two months’ imprisonment. On 8 December 2009 the Court of Appeal of the ARC quashed this sentence and remitted the case for a fresh investigation. It also ordered the applicant’s further detention. On 20 January 2010 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention till 10 March 2010. The court noted that the investigation in the case was still pending and that there were no grounds for release. On 9 February 2010 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld this decision. On 26 February 2010 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the court. On 29 March 2010 the Sakskyy Town Court authorised the applicant’s further detention. On 13 September 2010 the same court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On 22 February 2011 Court of Appeal of the ARC quashed this sentence and remitted the case for a fresh investigation. It also ordered the applicant’s further detention. On 29 April and 6 May 2011 the Simferopol Local Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s request for release. On 31 May 2011 the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the court. On 19 July 2011 the court referred the case back for further investigation, further pre-trial detention ordered. On 20 September 2011 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the decision of 19 July 2011. On 19 December 2011 the Yevpatoriyskyy Town Court ordered the applicant’s release subject to an undertaking not to abscond. In January 2012 the Simferopol Local Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office amended charges against the applicant. The applicant was finally charged with unlawful occupation of a land plot in June-July 2008 and with unlawful excavation of mineral resources. On 22 February 2012 the Yevpatoriyskyy Town Court terminated the proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was discharged from criminal liability due to expiry of the limitation period. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unlawful arrest on 24 March 2009 and further unlawful detention. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention about his lengthy pre-trial detention, impossibility to properly challenge his pre-trial detention and to receive compensation for the above violations. In particular, the applicant complains that the courts ignored his arguments in respect of his release and he did not participate in some of the court hearings.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s arrest on 24 March 2009, decisions on his detention of 27 March, 3 April and 14 April 2009, as well as his further detention, compatible with the requirements of the above Article?   2.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 §   4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §   1, 3, and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?