CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34787/13 Roman Volodymyrovych PRYYMAKOV against Ukraine lodged on 21 May 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Roman Volodymyrovych Pryymakov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1994 and lives in Romny. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Menko, a lawyer practising in Romny. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 31 August 2010 the applicant, a 16 year-old minor at the time, shot another minor. On the same day he was arrested on suspicion of deliberate murder and criminal proceedings were instituted against him. His detention was several times prolonged by the courts. On 1 July 2011 the Romny Court sent the case for additional investigation, following which on 20 October 2011 the investigator reclassified the crime into involuntary murder. On 15 November 2011 the Romny Court closed the criminal proceedings against the applicant under the 2011 Amnesty Act (which provided, inter alia , for an amnesty of persons who were minors at the moment of committing a crime of medium gravity). On the same day the applicant was released. On 17 January 2012, upon the prosecutor’s and the injured parties’ appeals, the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 15   November 2011 and remitted the case for re-examination. On 27 December 2012 the Romny Court sent the case for additional investigation, following which on 28 February 2014 it found the applicant guilty of involuntary murder, sentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment and amnestied him under the Amnesty Act. On 24 June 2014 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. On 30 July 2014 the Higher Specialised Court refused to review the decision of 24 June 2014, as that was not provided by law. On 9 December 2014 the Konotop Court, to which the case was transferred, found the applicant guilty of deliberate murder and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 4 March 2015 the Court of Appeal reclassified the crime into involuntary murder, sentenced the applicant to three and a half years’ imprisonment and amnestied him under the Amnesty Act. On 22 October 2015 the Higher Specialised Court quashed the latter judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for re-examination. On 6 April 2016 the Court of Appeal reclassified the crime into involuntary murder, sentenced the applicant to three and a half years’ imprisonment and amnestied him under the Amnesty Act. On 23 May 2017 the Higher Specialised Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for re-examination. On 23 January 2019 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 9   December 2014. On 20 February 2019 the Supreme Court opened cassation proceedings. By a ruling of 23 April 2020, it upheld the judgment of 9 December 2014 and the ruling of 23 January 2019, having agreed with the lower courts’ findings, and rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the proceedings in his case. He also complains under the same provision about unfairness of the proceedings on account of the facts that he was found guilty of deliberate murder after the charges against him had been dropped by investigators on 20   October 2011 and that the decisions amnestying him were quashed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the procedural handling of the case arbitrary in view of the repeated remittals of the case for re-investigation and re-examination?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in particular in view of the repeated contradictory decisions adopted in his case?