CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2016

.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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 24 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48759/06 Boris Vladimirovich IVANOV against Ukraine lodged on 3 November 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Boris Vladimirovich Ivanov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Fashchevka, the Russian Federation. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 December 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of embezzlement at the company where he held the post of director. He was also suspected of forgery of documents and abuse of office. On 26 December 2003 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, having regard to the seriousness of the crimes he was suspected of. On 11 and 15 April, 5 September 2005 and 30 January 2006 the District Court rejected as unfounded the applicant’s requests to have the preventive measure changed. The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious, the initial decision on placing him in pre-trial detention was lawful, and there had been risks that the applicant, if at liberty, might impede establishing the truth, obstruct justice or reoffend. On 18 December 2006 the District Court released the applicant against a written obligation not to abscond, considering that the applicant’s detention was no longer justified. On 30 March 2009 the District Court returned the case for additional investigation, considering that additional measures should be taken in relation to the collection of evidence. On 14 February 2011 the District Court found that the applicant, as director, had misused the funds available to the company and had unlawfully refused to pay salaries to the staff for a certain period of time. It acquitted the applicant of the other charges. The District Court further sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and a two year ban on occupying managerial posts in legal entities. Based on the Amnesty Act 2005, the District Court granted him amnesty from the punishment imposed. COMPLAINTS 1.   The applicant complains, under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention, that there were no grounds for his pre-trial detention and that its length was excessive. 2.   The applicant also complains, under Article 5   §   5 of the Convention, that he could not obtain compensation for the alleged violation of his right to liberty. 3.   Lastly, 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.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5   § 3 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to provide all the court decisions concerning the preventive measures applied to the applicant.   2.     Having regard to the requirements of Article 5   §   5 of the Convention, did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged breach of his right under Article 5 of the Convention?   3.     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?