CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .sFBB1651C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } Published on 19 July 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 68519/12 Dmytro Valentynovych REVA against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 June 2021   STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. As regards all the applications (a)    The applicants’ pre-trial detention and their criminal prosecution 3.     On 27 April 2012, before the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship held in Ukraine, a series of explosions took place in Dnipropetrovsk (currently – Dnipro) causing bodily injuries to numerous passers-by. Those explosions were believed to be a terrorist attack. 4.     On 31 May – 1 June 2012 the applicants were apprehended under Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1960 on suspicion of having been involved in the above-mentioned attack. According to the relevant arrest reports, they were “identified by eyewitnesses as persons who had committed the crime” and “clear traces of the crime were found” during a search of their homes (the first and the third applicants noted therein that they had no connection to the terrorist attack). The third applicant challenged the arrest before the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (hereafter – the first ‑ instance court), but his complaint was dismissed on 2 June 2012. 5.     On 1 June 2012 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants. They were familiarised with the relevant decisions on 2 June 2012. 6.     On 2 June 2012 the first-instance court ordered the applicants’ pre ‑ trial detention. The court mainly stated that the applicants were reasonably suspected of committing a serious crime and that there was no need to corroborate with evidence the existence of the risks supporting the necessity to detain them. The first and the third applicants appealed against the detention orders, stating that there was a lack of due reasons to place them in detention, and that no personal information about them had been considered by the first-instance court when choosing the most severe preventive measure. On 8 June 2012 the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk Region dismissed their appeals as unsubstantiated, reiterating the reasoning of the first-instance court and noting that some positive information about the applicants could not justify the application of preventive measures other than detention. 7.     Between 26 July and 30 - 31 October 2012, the courts extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention on two occasions. They referred to the severity of the charges, the need to carry out certain investigative acts and the applicants’ failure to admit their guilt in committing the crime. 8.     On 25 October 2012 the criminal case against the applicants was transmitted for trial to the Industrialnyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (hereafter – the trial court). 9.     Starting from 8 November 2012, the trial court rejected the applicants’ requests to replace their detention on remand with less severe preventive measures and extended their detention without setting any time ‑ limits. This court mainly relied on the severity of the charges and the impossibility of ensuring the applicants’ proper behaviour within the proceedings by other means. 10.     On 11 March 2014 the prosecuting authorities refused to press charges against the first and the third applicants, stating that the evidence did not prove that they were guilty of committing the crime. The trial court accepted this refusal and ordered the applicants’ release. 11.     On 10 April 2014 the trial court terminated the criminal proceedings against the first and the third applicants. 12.     Starting from 18 June 2015, the trial court extended the second applicant’s detention on remand, fixing time-limits. 13.     On 20 February 2018 the second applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to imprisonment. This verdict was not challenged and became final. (b)    The refusal of family visits and restrictions on correspondence 14.     From June 2012 (in respect of the third applicant) and November 2012 (in respect of the first and the second applicants) the applicants’ close relatives requested family visits. Referring to Article 162 of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 12 of the 1993 Pre-Trial Detention Act, the investigating authorities and the trial court on numerous occasions rejected the above-mentioned requests, stating that no arguments corroborating the grounds for family visits were provided. 15.     In April 2013 the third applicant’s wife sent him a letter, but the penitentiary facility returned this letter explaining that, pursuant to Article   13 of the 1993 Pre-Trial Detention Act, only the authority considering the case was empowered to allow exchange of correspondence. Afterwards, the third applicant asked the trial court not to restrict the right to exchange correspondence with his relatives, but this court responded that it had no competence to deal with the above issue. As regards applications nos. 68519/12 and 32912/13 16.     During the period from June 2012 to April 2013 state officials of the prosecuting authorities (including the General Prosecutor) and the Security Service of Ukraine, the Deputy Prime Minister and a member of the Ukrainian parliament made public statements to the press describing the course of the criminal investigation, the suspects (even mentioning their family names) and the availability of evidence that they had committed the crime. 17.     In September 2013 the third applicant applied to the trial court, requesting a separate ruling finding a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence due to the above statements, but this court refused to find a violation. COMPLAINTS 1.     All the applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their pre-trial detention between 30 – 31 October and 8 November 2012 was not based on any court order and that the courts’ decisions authorising their detention during the trial stage were arbitrary as they did not set any time ‑ limits. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, they further complain that the overall length of their pre-trial detention was excessive and unjustified. They also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities arbitrarily refused to allow them family visits during their pre-trial detention. 2.     The first and the third applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that no reasonable suspicion that they had committed the crime supported their arrest. Referring to Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, they further complain that press coverage of the course of the criminal proceedings against them by State officials infringed the principle of presumption of innocence. 3.     The second applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he had no effective procedure for review of the lawfulness of his detention during the trial stage. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, he also complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonably long and that no effective domestic remedies were available. 4.     The third applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to exchange correspondence with close relatives was unlawfully restricted.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING ALL APPLICATIONS 1.     Was the applicants’ detention between the end of the investigation and the beginning of the trial in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Were the court orders made during the trial stage compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 70-76 and 98, 10 February 2011)? 2.     Did the decisions of the domestic courts ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention contain sufficient reasons to justify that detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , cited above, §§ 79‑81 and 99 ; and Ignatov v.   Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§ 40‑42 and 52, 15 December 2016)? Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? 3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, because of the refusal to allow them family visits during their pre-trial detention (see Shalimov v. Ukraine , no. 20808/02, §§ 84-91, 4 March 2010)? QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING APPLICATIONS NOS. 68519/12 AND 32912/13 1.     Were the arrest reports sufficiently detailed and specific to satisfy an independent observer that there had been a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed a crime (see Grinenko v. Ukraine , no. 33627/06, §§ 82-84, 15 November 2012)? 2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected given the public statements of State officials as regards criminal proceedings against the applicants (see Dovzhenko v.   Ukraine , no. 36650/03, §§ 40-43 and 47-53, 12 January 2012)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, a contrario , Znaykin v. Ukraine , no. 37538/05, § 69, 7 October 2010)? If so, the Government are requested to provide the relevant domestic case-law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 5810/13 1.     Did the applicant have at his disposal, during the trial stage, 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 , cited above, §§ 84-87 and 100; and Ignatov v. Ukraine , cited above, §§ 45-47 and 52)? 2.     Was the length of criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Merit v. Ukraine , no.   66561/01, §§ 72-76, 78 and 79, 30 March 2004)? QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 32912/13 Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, because of the refusal to allow him to correspond with his family during his pre-trial detention (see Moroz v. Ukraine , no. 5187/07, §§ 87-90, 2 March 2017)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 68519/12 Reva v. Ukraine 16/10/2012 Dmytro Valentynovych REVA 1978 Dnipro Ukrainian Vitaliy Eduardovych POGOSYAN 2. 5810/13 Sukachov v.   Ukraine 14/01/2013 Viktor Valeryevich SUKACHOV 1978 Dnipro Ukrainian Vitaliy Viktorovych SAVKO 3. 32912/13 Prosvirnin v.   Ukraine 18/05/2013 Lev Volodymyrovych PROSVIRNIN 1978 Dnipro Ukrainian Olena Yuriyivna KYRYLLOVA