CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s30F3DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } Communicated on 17 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 69195/17 Stanislav Oleksandrovych MARTYNCHUK against Ukraine and 18 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications principally concern the applicants’ allegations under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about being arrested without prior court decision in breach of the requirements of domestic law. On various dates (see appendix) the applicants were arrested by law-enforcement authorities in the context of criminal proceedings which had previously been initiated against the applicants during a period ranging from three days to five years prior to their arrest. Relevant arrest records indicated that the applicants had been arrested for the reason of either whilst committing a crime or attempting to commit one, or immediately after a crime has been committed, following the statements of an eyewitness, including the victim, or following an indication of clear signs that the person has just committed a crime, or for all these reasons. Some of the applications, as specified in the appendix, also raise the following issues: the alleged lack of justification of their detention including the determination of the amount of bail, the alleged lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of their detention, the alleged absence of a right to compensation for the applicants’ unlawful deprivation of liberty, and the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence in the course of pre-trial investigation.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS Was the applicants’ detention, based on the arrest reports on the dates indicated in the appendix, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Strogan v. Ukraine , no. 30198/11, §§ 85-89, 6 October 2016)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 50594/18 AND 50595/18 Was the alleged delay between the actual arrest of the applicants and the drawing up of the arrest report or creation of other records of their arrest compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 14628/20 AND 20292/20 Was the applicants’ pre-trial 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, §§ 34-37, 15 December 2016)? In particular, as regards application no.   20292/20, was the amount of bail determined in accordance with the above provision? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 69195/17, 10957/18, 18444/18, 27194/18, 50594/18, 50595/18, 12830/19, 18347/19, 19336/20, 20292/20, AND 32225/20 Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§   84 ‑ 87, 10 February 2011)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 69195/17, 18444/18, 50900/18, AND 52855/19 Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, 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)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 52855/19 Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, given the public statements of high-ranking State officials in respect of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see, for example, Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§   230 ‑ 32, 4 July 2019)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by Date of commission of crime/institution of criminal proceedings Date of actual arrest Additional complaints to be communicated 1 69195/17 06/09/2017 Martynchuk v. Ukraine Stanislav Oleksandrovych MARTYNCHUK 1988 Sumy   Pavlo Mykolayovych SOBYNA   24/07/2016 11/08/2016 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand; Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, as required by Article 5   §   5 2 1470/18 02/12/2017 Mykytyuk v. Ukraine Volodymyr Vasylyovych MYKYTYUK 1982 Bolekhiv   Iryna Radyslavivna VAN       26/10/2017 09/11/2017   3 10957/18 26/02/2018 Avakov v. Ukraine Oleksandr Arsenovych AVAKOV 1988 Kharkiv   Oleksandr Mykolayovych LYSAK   07/07/2015 31/10/2017 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 4 18444/18 12/04/2018 Trofymenko v. Ukraine Volodymyr Vsevolodovych TROFYMENKO 1965 Kyiv   Nazar Stepanovych KULCHYTSKYY           09/09/2016 16/10/2017 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand; Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, as required by Article 5   §   5 5 27194/18 06/06/2018 Trukhanov v. Ukraine Gennadiy Leonidovych TRUKHANOV 1965 Odesa   Oleksandr Mykolayovych LYSAK   02/11/2016 14/02/2018 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 6 27265/18 06/06/2018 Ignatchenko v. Ukraine Nataliya Mykolayivna IGNATCHENKO 1971 Romankiv Kyiv region   Oleksandr Mykolayovych LYSAK   31/01/2013 29/01/2018   7 49105/18 01/10/2018 Tkachenko v. Ukraine Sergiy Oleksandrovych TKACHENKO 1982 Kryvyy Rig   Oksana Vadymivna RAGOZINA   26/06/2017 09/08/2018   8 50594/18 27/09/2018 Grebenyuk v. Ukraine Volodymyr Mykolayovych GREBENYUK 1980 Kyiv   Igor Valeriyovych BONDARENKO 23/03/2018 29/03/2018 Unrecorded detention; Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 9 50595/18 27/09/2018 Moskalenko v. Ukraine Vadym Valeriyovych MOSKALENKO 1993 Brovary   Maksym Petrovych BORYSOV     23/03/2018 29/03/2018 Unrecorded detention; Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 10 50900/18 16/10/2018 Selegey v. Ukraine Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych SELEGEY 1990 Khukhra   Pavlo Mykolayovych SOBYNA   19/05/2018 22/05/2018 Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5   §   5 11 3999/19 24/12/2018 Tamrazov v. Ukraine Oleksiy Garriyovych TAMRAZOV 1975 Kyiv   Dmytro Igorovych CHASHCHEVYY   31/01/2013 21/08/2018   12 12830/19 21/02/2019 Kolosov v. Ukraine Volodymyr Fedorovych KOLOSOV 1970 Cherkasy   Sergiy Viktorovych VOYCHENKO     19/06/2018 21/12/2018 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 13 18347/19 25/03/2019 Brodskyy v. Ukraine Yevgen Olegovych BRODSKYY 1984 Dnipro Sergiy Sergiyovych SYROVATKA   31/07/2018 16/12/2018 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 14 52855/19 07/10/2019 Rytikov v. Ukraine Mykhaylo Sergiyovych RYTIKOV 1987 Kryzhanivka Viktoriia KIRINA   25/01/2019 11/07/2019 Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5   §   5; Breach of the presumption of innocence 15 14628/20 11/03/2020 Grymchak v. Ukraine Yuriy Mykolayovych GRYMCHAK 1965 Kyiv   Tetyana Valeriyivna MATYASH   19/07/2019 14/08/2019 The lack of justification of detention 16 19336/20 24/04/2020 Khmil v. Ukraine Dmytro Oleksandrovych KHMIL 1980 Synyak   Igor Anatoliyovych KORYENKOV   20/02/2014 31/10/2018 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 17 20292/20 12/03/2020 Fedorchuk v. Ukraine Fedir Fedorovych FEDORCHUK 1971 Irpin   Oleksiy Volodymyrovych ZAKHAROV   19/11/2018 17/08/2019 The lack of justification of detention including the determination of the amount of bail; Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand 18 23946/20 30/04/2020 Gladkovskyy vv. Ukraine Oleg Volodymyrovych GLADKOVSKYY 1970 Kozyn Kyiv region   Ruslan Anatoliyovych VOLYNETS   24/04/2018 17/10/2019   19 32225/20 21/07/2020 Hrytsenko v. Ukraine Oleksandr Viktorovych HRYTSENKO 1975 Kyiv   Denys Sergiyovych DYOMIN   31/01/2013 16/11/2019 Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand