CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Published on 3 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13511/15 Denys Oleksandrovych TYMOFEYEV against Ukraine and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were accused of terrorism and national security-related offences. The domestic courts, in placing them in pre-trial detention or in extending their detention, relied in part on Article 176 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which at the time provided that non-custodial preventing measures such as bail could not be applied to defendants suspected of or charged with certain terrorism and national security-related offences (see Grubnyk v. Ukraine , no. 58444/15, 17 September 2020). They complain, invoking Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, that, in particular because of the reliance on the above-mentioned domestic provision, the domestic courts failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for their detention, consider alternatives to detention and that their detention was excessively lengthy.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the applicants’ cases? In particular: (i)     did the courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ detention? (ii)     was the domestic courts’ reliance on Article 176 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the applicants’ cases compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 13511/15 Tymofeyev v. Ukraine 03/03/2015 Denys Oleksandrovych TYMOFEYEV 1983 Dnipropetrovsk Ukrainian Oleksandr Gennadiyovych POSTERNAK 2 41891/15 Smagina v. Ukraine 17/08/2015 Yuliya Aleksandrovna SMAGINA 1990 Stara Pokrovka Ukrainian Oleksandr Sergiyovych SHADRIN 3 59909/15 Vladimirov v. Ukraine 30/10/2015 Roman Valeryevich VLADIMIROV 1979 Rubezhnoye Ukrainian Dmitriy Anatolyevich TIKHONENKOV 4 43251/16 Glazkov v. Ukraine 13/07/2016 Roman Ivanovich GLAZKOV 1992 Lysychansk Ukrainian Sergey Sergeyevich MEDVEDEV 5 43253/16 Burchenkov v. Ukraine 10/07/2016 Artyr Viktorovich BURCHENKOV 1996 Lysychansk Ukrainian Sergey Sergeyevich MEDVEDEV 6 64557/16 Medyanyk v. Ukraine 24/10/2016 Volodymyr Yuriyovych MEDYANYK 1970 Kyiv Ukrainian Andriy Anatoliyovych KRISTENKO