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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64887/13 Sergiy Mykhaylovych ZHUK against Ukraine lodged on 30 September 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention awaiting the determination of the criminal charges brought against him, in particular with a view of the fact that the decisions of the domestic courts authorising his detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. On 16 July 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a drug crime. His pre-trial detention was authorised by the local court several times, containing allegedly insufficient reasoning. On 27   September 2013 the applicant was convicted to an imprisonment term. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention from 16 July to 27 September 2013 was unjustified. He further complains under Articles 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., ECHR 2016 (extracts) and Ignatov v.   Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§ 40-42, 15 December 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article   5   §   5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine , no.   39884/05, §§ 79-82, 19 January 2012, and Taran v. Ukraine , no.   31898/06, §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013)?