CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC16889D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } Communicated on 18 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22194/18 Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ allegations under Article   5   § 1 of the Convention about unjustified continued detention after the relevant grounds for that detention ceased to exist. Relevant details of applications are indicated in the appendix. The applicant in application no.   22194/18 also complains that the Supreme Court, when quashing the applicant’s conviction on 9 October 2017 and remitting the case for re-trial, failed to provide reasons for the applicant’s detention and did not set a time-limit for that detention which lasted until 23   March 2018, when the trial court ordered the applicant’s release. He furthermore complains under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention that he did not have a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention as well as an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS Were the applicants deprived of their liberty, after the relevant reasons for their detention had ceased to exist, as indicated in the appendix, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine , no. 5425/11, §§   67-70, 4 June 2015)? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 22194/18 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty from 9 October 2017 to 23   March 2018 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision of the Supreme Court of 9 October 2017 maintaining his continued detention on remand without indicating reasons of that detention and setting a time-limit on it compatible with the requirements of that Article (see Kondratyev v. Ukraine , no. 5203/09, §§   109-112, 15   December 2011)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011)?   3.     Did the applicant 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)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Represented by Reason for the applicant’s release Due date of the applicant’s release Date of the applicant’s actual release Other complaints to be communicated 1 22194/18   23/04/2018 Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK 1968 Nikopol Ukrainian Iryna Anatoliyivna BOYKOVA Decision of the Desnyanskyi District Court of Kyiv of 23/03/2018 ordering the applicant’s release   23/03/2018   03/04/2018 Article 5 § 1 – unlawful detention from 9   October 2017 to 23   March 2018; Article 5 § 4 – lack of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention; Article 5 § 5 – absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 2 40232/19   22/07/2019 Vitaliy Grygorovych DYSHUK 1978 Poltava Ukrainian Tamila Sergiyivna BESPALA Decision of the Petrivskyi Local Court of Kirovograd Region of 22/03/2019 recalculating the applicant’s prison term (became final on 15/04/2019)   15/04/2019   22/04/2019   3   14665/20   27/02/2020 Vasyl Mykhaylovych GOYZAN 1994 Dubrynychi Ukrainian Igor Mykhaylovych SHKORKA Decision of the Zakarpattyta Court of Appeal taken at 11.35 am of 29/08/2019 quashing the applicant’s detention ordered by the lower court   29/08/2019   30/08/2019 at 6.42 pm   4   19068/20   28/02/2020 Petro Petrovych NIKOLAYENKO 1984 Gomel Belarusian Dmytro Viktorovych YAGUNOV Decision of the Odessa Court of Appeal of 06/02/2020 ordering the applicant’s early release   06/02/2020   07/02/2020 at 6.27 pm