CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Communicated on 3 December 2015   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos 37650/13 and 55971/13 Yuriy Mykolayovych SEVASTYANOV against Ukraine and Yuriy Mykolayovych SEVASTYANOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 May 2013 and 12 August 2013 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Mykolayovych Sevastyanov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and is currently being held in a pre-trial detention centre. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant In 2008 and 2009 a series of robberies and burglaries were committed in the Kyiv, Kirovohrad, Volyn and Zhytomyr regions, leading to a number of criminal investigations being initiated. The applicant was suspected of having participated in the crimes as a member of a criminal group. (a)     Criminal proceedings in relation to the crimes committed in the Kyiv and Kirovohrad regions At about 10 p.m. on 2 September 2009 police officers arrested the applicant in the town of Vyshneve, Kyiv Region, where he lived. The police officers allegedly beat him up during the arrest. The officers then took him by car to the city of Kirovohrad, about 300 kilometres away. The applicant was allegedly held incommunicado for all of the next day at the Kirovohrad Regional Police Department, where police officers allegedly beat him up and put psychological pressure on him to obtain his confession to a robbery committed in the Kirovohrad Region. At 9.02 p.m. on 3 September 2009 a police investigator of the Ulyanovka District Police Department of the Kirovohrad Region formally placed the applicant under arrest and drew up an arrest report. On the same day a medical expert examined the applicant. On 4   September 2009 the expert issued a report stating that the applicant had sustained a bruise on the right ear, two abrasions on the mouth, and four abrasions on both forearms. The expert considered that the injuries had been inflicted by a blunt object, between one and three days before the examination. On 4 September 2009 the Ulyanovka District Court of the Kirovohrad Region prolonged the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days. On 11 September 2009 the same court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and that he did not reside at his registered address; other preventive measures would not ensure his compliance with procedural decisions. Between 2010 and 2012 the Hayvoron District Court and the Ulyanovka District Court of the Kirovohrad Region held hearings in the case against the applicant and his accomplices on charges of robbery committed in the Kirovohrad Region. In 2012 the Kyevo-Svyatoshynsky District Court of the Kyiv Region (“the Kyevo-Svyatoshynsky Court”) commenced the trial of the applicant and the other defendants on charges of robbery and burglary committed in the Kyiv Region. On 24 May 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court decided that the two cases should be joined and examined by the Kyevo ‑ Svatishynskyy Court. On 22 July 2013 the Kyevo-Svatishynskyy Court consolidated the two criminal cases into one set of proceedings. It also dismissed a request by the applicant for a change of preventive measure, noting that the grounds on which the applicant’s detention had been ordered still existed. On 24 March 2014 the Kyevo-Svatishynskyy Court dismissed another request by the applicant to change the preventive measure applied to him, noting that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still existed. On 31 August 2015 the Kyevo-Svatishynskyy Court remitted the case for additional investigation. That decision was appealed against by the prosecutor. (b)     Criminal proceedings in relation to crimes committed in the Zhytomyr and Volyn regions On 26 June 2014 the investigation of the robberies and burglary in the Zhytomyr Region was suspended. On 14 November 2014 the Ratne District Court of the Volyn Region commenced the trial of the applicant and other defendants on charges of robbery committed in the Volyn Region. On 30 April 2015 the same court convicted the applicant of robbery (committed in the Volyn Region) and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered confiscation of his property. On 22 July 2015 The Volyn Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 14 November 2014, having amended its reasoning part. 2.     Enquiries and investigations into the allegations of ill-treatment of 2   and 3 September 2009 On 26 November 2009 material from the criminal case file relating to the applicant’s allegations of police ill-treatment was submitted to the prosecutor of the Kirovohrad Region by an investigator of the Kirovohrad Regional Police Department. On 31 December 2009 the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, having conducted pre-investigation enquiries, refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers owing to a lack of corpus delicti . On 3 April 2014 the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. On 31 July 2014 an investigator of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office closed the case for lack of evidence that the applicant had been ill ‑ treated by police officers. He referred, in particular, to the statements of the police officers, who denied subjecting the applicant to any ill ‑ treatment or pressure. As to the injuries found on the applicant on 3 September 2009, the investigator considered that they could have been sustained before the applicant’s arrest. On 20 August 2014 the Leninskyy District Court of the Kirovohrad Region (“the Leninskyy Court”) quashed the decision of 31 July 2014 as unsubstantiated, finding that it had been taken without an assessment of all the evidence in the case, and in particular that the circumstances relating to how the injuries had been sustained by the applicant had not been scrutinised. On 20 November 2014 the Leninskyy Court found that the investigator had unlawfully refused to grant victim status to the applicant and to carry out an identification parade. On 26 March 2015 the Leninskyy Court found once again that the applicant had been unlawfully refused the status of victim. On 10 April 2015 the same court ruled that the applicant was to have the status of victim in the criminal proceedings despite the fact that the investigator had not taken a decision to that effect. On 27 May 2015 the investigator of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office closed the case for lack of corpus delicti . On 30 June 2015 the Leninskyy Court quashed the decision of 27 May 2014 as unsubstantiated and remitted the case for further investigation. The court pointed out that the origin of the applicant’s injuries and the circumstances of his arrest had not been investigated properly; furthermore, the applicant’s procedural rights had not been respected during the investigation. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that between 2 and 3 September 2009 police officers ill-treated him and that there has been no effective investigation of those events. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 5   §   1 of the Convention that on 2 September 2009 he was unlawfully arrested and held in incommunicado detention. 3.     The applicant complains under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was excessively long and unsubstantiated. 4.     The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was unreasonable.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With regard to the events alleged to have taken place between 2 and 3   September 2009, has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide medical documents concerning the applicant relating to the period of his alleged ill-treatment.   2.     Were the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment between 2 and 3 September 2009 compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide: (a)     a chronological list of pre-investigation, investigation, and judicial measures taken in respect of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment; (b)     copies of documents concerning the respective domestic proceedings (including decisions by the investigative authorities refusing to open criminal proceedings, their decisions to suspend or terminate the criminal proceedings, as well as decisions by the supervising authorities taken after review of the above-mentioned decisions).   3.     With regard to the alleged events of 2 and 3 September 2009, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention?   4.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the overall length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement? Did the courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention? Did they consider alternative measures of ensuring the applicant’s appearance at trial? The Government are requested to provide copies of all the decisions by which the domestic authorities applied, extended or maintained the applicant’s detention in custody.   5.     Has the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?