CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2018

.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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 25 January 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24751/10 Ivan Georgiyevich KANNA against Ukraine lodged on 15 April 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ivan Georgiyevich Kanna, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 18 May 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of bribery. On 21 May 2008 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended a number of times. On 7 April 2010 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to, inter alia , ten years’ imprisonment. On 6 October 2010 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the local court’s decision as to the applicant’s guilt and reduced the term of his imprisonment to eight years. On 14 June 2011 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the ruling of 6 October 2010 and remitted the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration. On 22 December 2011 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 7 April 2010 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh consideration. It also ordered the applicant’s further detention. No reasons for the applicant’s detention or a time-limit were set out in the decision of the court of appeal. In the course of the retrial the applicant asked the court to change the preventive measure preventing him from absconding on the grounds that he had been detained in breach of reasonable time requirements and had had no reason to hide from the investigation. On 20 February 2012 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk refused that application, having stated that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure. On 17 December 2012 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to, inter alia , ten years’ imprisonment. On 28 May 2013 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the local court’s decision as to the applicant’s guilt and reduced the term of his imprisonment to eight years. On 11 February 2014 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld, with slight amendments, the decision of the court of appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, when quashing the sentence of the local court and remitting the case for a retrial on 22 December 2011, failed to provide reasons for its decision authorising his detention on remand, and set no time-limit on it. The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the trial court refused his application for release without providing sufficient reasons. 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 decision of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal of 22 December 2011 confirming his continued detention on remand without setting a time-limit on it compatible with the requirements of that Article (see Kondratyev v. Ukraine , no. 5203/09, §§   109-112, 15 December 2011)?   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.     Was the procedure by which the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his detention after the completion of the pre-trial investigation in his case in conformity with the requirement of Article 5   §   4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine , no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010)?