CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 22 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57967/15 Vladyslav Stanislavovych LUKASH against Ukraine lodged on 10 November 2015 communicated on 2 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about being arrested without prior court decision in breach of the requirements of domestic law. On 21 April 2015 the applicant, a police officer at the material time, was arrested at his home by the law-enforcement authorities in the context of the investigation into the Maidan events in Kyiv (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, 21 January 2021), which had previously been initiated on 22   January 2014. The relevant arrest report indicated that the applicant had been arrested 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 applicant has just committed a crime. The arrest report did not indicate more details explaining the reasons for the arrest of the applicant who, as he states, had been questioned as witness a number of times in the course of the above investigation. On 23 April 2015 the Kyiv Pecherskyi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention. On 15 May 2015 the same court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about his unlawful arrest. In the course of the investigation, on 2 December 2015, the applicant was released from detention under house arrest. That preventive measure was subsequently replaced by personal commitment not to abscond. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s detention, based on the arrest report of 21   April   2015, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see   Strogan   v.   Ukraine , no. 30198/11, §§ 85-89, 6 October 2016)?