CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2016

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sABF0F303 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 12 December 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43374/14 Valeriy Valeriyovych KONOPLYOV against Ukraine lodged on 2 June 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Valeriy Valeriyovych Konoplyov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and at the time of the most recent communication from him to the Court was detained in Simferopol. He is represented before the Court by Ms A.R. Martynovska, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Prior to his arrest the applicant was the mayor of the town of Inkerman. On 13 August 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of bribery and initially detained in a police detention facility in Sevastopol. On an unspecified date he was transferred from the police detention facility to the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO). On 16 August 2012 the Sevastopol Leninsky District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court referred to various circumstances as grounds for its decision, most notably the risk that, if left at liberty, the applicant would use his position and connections to influence witnesses and his co ‑ defendant, who remained at liberty. On 1 November 2012 the Sevastopol Balaklava District Court (“the trial court”) committed the applicant for trial and decided that he should remain in detention. It did not set any time-limit for his detention. According to the applicant, he was kept in a metal cage in the course of his trial. According to him, on three occasions, the last on 4   December 2013, he requested that he be allowed to sit outside of the cage next to his lawyer but the trial court rejected his requests. On 3 February 2014 the trial court convicted the applicant of bribery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was kept in a metal cage in the course of his trial. Under Article 5 of the Convention he complains that after 1 November 2012 there was no court order setting a time-limit for his detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the course of his trial (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 1 November 2012 and 3 February 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see   Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 73-76, 10 February 2011)?