CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 5 October 2020 Published on 26 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23002/13 Margarita Anatolyevna PODLESNAYA against Ukraine lodged on 16 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Margarita Anatolyevna Podlesnaya, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In February 2000 a police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant into the theft of State property, embezzlement and forgery. In the course of the investigation the applicant gave an undertaking not to abscond. In February 2001 the investigation was suspended in view of the applicant’s absconding. She was put on the wanted list. On 20 October 2011 the applicant was arrested in Russia. On 22 October 2011 the Artemovsk Local Court of Donetsk Region (“the local court”) altered the preventive measure in respect of the applicant from undertaking not to abscond to detention on remand, without specifying the time-limit of detention. As a reason for the applicant’s detention the local court indicated that the applicant had absconded and had been placed on a wanted list. On 11 July 2012 the applicant was extradited to Ukraine and placed in the Artemovsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre. She submits that she was not informed about the grounds of her detention until 20 August 2012 when she was served with a copy of the court’s decision of 22 October 2011. On 17 September 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the local court of 22 October 2011. The hearing of the applicant’s appeal was conducted in her absence but in the presence of the prosecutor. On 20 September 2012 the applicant was released under an undertaking not to abscond. Relevant domestic law Article 156 of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) which was applicable in the applicant’s case, provided that detention during a pre ‑ trial investigation shall not last more than two months. Other relevant provisions of the CCP can be found in the case of Krivolapov v. Ukraine (no. 5406/07, § 61, 2 October 2018). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about her arbitrary detention on the basis of the decision of the Artemovsk Local Court of Donetsk Region of 22 October 2011 containing no time-limit for her detention. She furthermore complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that after her extradition to Ukraine she was not brought before a judge but continued to be detained according to the court’s decision taken nine months before. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the breach of the procedural guarantees in the course of the review of the lawfulness of her detention, notably that the Court of Appeal conducted a hearing in her absence but in the presence of a prosecutor. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention after her extradition to Ukraine in July 2012 in compliance with Article 5   §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Yeloyev v. Ukraine , no. 17283/02, § 54, 6 November 2008)?   2.     Was the applicant promptly brought before the judge as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, §§ 117-26, ECHR 2010)?   3.     Was the procedure by which the applicant’s detention was reviewed on 17 September 2012 in conformity with Article   5   §   4 of the Convention in the light of her allegations that she had not been summoned to the court hearings (see, for example, Korneykova v.   Ukraine , no.   39884/05, §§   68-69, 19 January 2012)?