CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2022

.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 } Published on 12 December 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42171/17 Igor Vasylyovych LYUBOVETSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 28 May 2017 communicated on 25 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 §§   1   (a) and 5 and under Article 7 of the Convention about an allegedly unlawful refusal by the domestic authorities to terminate the criminal proceedings against him as prescribed in a timely manner. The delay was caused by the differences in the interpretation of the applicable law given that the new law provided for a more lenient sentence while the old law provided for a more favourable statute of limitations for the crime committed by the applicant. This resulted in him having served his service almost in full (seven years out of eight), by the time when the domestic courts applied the most favourable provision of criminal law on statute of limitations and closed the criminal case against him. The applicant’s attempt to obtain compensation for his detention was ultimately unsuccessful. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was a stricter criminal law on statute of limitation applied to the applicant at the time of his sentencing, contrary to Article   7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Koprivnikar v. Slovenia , no. 67503/13, §§ 50-60, 24   January 2017)? 2. If so, did the findings of the Kmelnitskyi Regional Court of Appeal in its decision of 10 October 2013 about the erroneous application of the less favourable provision on statute of limitations by the lower court render the applicant’s deprivation of liberty unlawful and thus in breach of Article   5 §   1   (a) of the Convention? 3.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 §   5 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Shulgin v. Ukraine , no.   29912/05, §§ 60 to 66, 8 December 2011)?