CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 13 May 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67800/12 Anatoliy Valentynovych BEREZA against Ukraine lodged on 17 October 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article   5 §   1   (b) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention of having been forcedly held at a police station, on 8 April 2011 from 18.00 to 20.30, for interrogation as witness in breach of domestic law and without relevant justification. The domestic courts, when dismissing the applicant’s complaint (the final decision taken by the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters on 14 August 2012), found that the impugned measure had been lawful without assessing whether it had been justified. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty from 18:00 to 20:30 on 8 April 2011 fall within paragraph (b) of this provision?