CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD375925E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE1E434D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sD85A7749 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sC2F16AEA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } Published on 16 January 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 3018/17 Yuriy Mykolayovych ABAKUMOV against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern allegations of ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities during arrest and/or in custody with a view to forcing the applicants to give self-incriminating statements and the lack of effective domestic investigation in respect of the aforementioned allegations. The applicants invoke Article   3 of the Convention in respect of the above complaints. Some applicants additionally invoke other Articles of the Convention, in particular Articles 6 and/or 13. Three applicants also raise further complaints. More specifically, Mr   Y.   Abakumov (application no. 3018/17) complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, that his arrest on 12 February 2015 and detention until 13 February 2015 were unlawful and under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the criminal proceedings pending against him has been excessive. Mr   V.   Tomilenko (application no.   10709/17) complains, under Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, that his arrest on 26 July 2016 and detention until 28 July 2016 had been unlawful and arbitrary. Mr   D.   Pomeranets (application no.   82430/17) complains, under Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, that his arrest on 10 September 2015 and detention until 11 September 2015 were unlawful and arbitrary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions in respect of all applications 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph 131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§   169-182, 15   May   2012), was the investigation of the applicants’ relevant complaints by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention? Additional questions in respect of application lodged by Mr   Y.   Abakumov (no. 3018/17) 1.     Were the applicant’s arrest and detention in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     was he arrested at 9 a.m. on 12 February 2015, as argued by him?   (b)     were his arrest and detention until 10 p.m. on 12 February 2015 and between 9 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on 13 February 2015 in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”?   2.     Has the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Additional questions in respect of application lodged by Mr   V.   Tomilenko (no. 1079/17) 1.     Did the applicant raise his arguments concerning alleged unlawfulness and arbitrariness of his arrest and detention between 26 and 28 July 2016 in the proceedings with a view to considering the request by the law-enforcement authority to remand him in custody? If not, did he exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his aforementioned complaint?   2.     Were the applicant’s arrest and detention on the aforementioned dates in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     was the applicant’s arrest effected for the declared purpose of preventing him from fleeing after having committed an offence? (b)     was his arrest and subsequent detention until his appearance before a judge on 28   July   2016 in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”? Additional question in respect of application lodged by Mr   D.   Pomeranets (no. 82430/17) Were the applicant’s arrest and detention in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     was he arrested at 1 a.m. on 10 September 2015, as argued by him?   (b)     were his arrest and detention on 10 and 11 September 2015 in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”?   APPENDIX Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Alleged ill-treatment Other relevant facts 3018/17 Abakumov v.   Ukraine 21/12/2016 Yuriy Mykolayovych ABAKUMOV 1962 Ivanivske 12-13/02/2015 Officers of the Kharkiv regional State security service During arrest and in detention Abrasion (cheekbone); wounds (shins) Arrest and detention on 12 and 13/02/2015: The applicant was arrested without a court warrant (and in absence of statutory grounds for arrest without a warrant) at about 9   a.m. on suspicion of participating in a sabotage conspiracy and taken to his home, where search was carried out. The arrest report was drafted at 10   p.m., indicating wrong time and grounds for the arrest. The applicant was provided with a formal “notification of suspicion” ( повідомлення про підозру ) only at 11.30 a.m. on 13/02/2015, that is outside the statutory time-limit of 24 hours from the actual arrest.   Duration of criminal proceedings: 12/02/2015 – pending Three levels of jurisdiction 10709/17 Tomilenko v.   Ukraine 28/01/2017 Valeriy Mykhaylovych TOMILENKO 1972 Kyiv 26/07/2016 Officers of the National anti-corruption bureau (NABU) Cerebral concussion; abrasion (forehead); extended and unjustified application of handcuffs; refusal to arrange timely access to prescribed medications and medical assistance; retrieval from the hospital without permission of medical staff. Arrest and detention on 26-28/07/2016: At about 7.15 a.m. on 26/07/2016 NABU officers arrived in the applicant’s house with a search warrant issued within the framework of the criminal proceedings concerning a corruption-related offence, in which he was not a suspect at the material time. In response to his demands to conduct the search in the presence of his lawyer, they arrested him with reference to Article 208   §   3 (Code of Criminal Procedure): risk of flight of a suspect in a grave corruption offence. At 4.25   p.m. the applicant was formally notified of his status as a suspect and on 28/07/2016 brought before a judge, who ordered his release and assignation to residence at nighttime. On 27/07, 28/07, and 14/11/2016 the judicial authorities refused, on various grounds, to consider the merits of the applicant’s complaint that his arrest and initial detention had been unlawful, arbitrary and effected for ulterior purpose to punish him for demanding the presence of his lawyer. 37202/17 Bilotstotskyy v. Ukraine 15/05/2017   Oleksiy Oleksandrovych Bilostotskyy 1989 Vinnytsya 24/12/2013 Officers of the Vinnytsya municipal police Abrasions (knee, back); hematomas (back)   51996/17 Voronyuk v. Ukraine 05/07/2017 Leonid Mykolayovych VORONYUK 1959 Nova Chortoriya   29/04/2014 Officers of the Lubarskyi district police in Zhytomyrskyi region Blunt thorax trauma; fractures of the 8 th and 9 th ribs on the right   82430/17 Pomeranets v.   Ukraine 27/11/2017 Dmytro Sergiyovych POMERANETS 1985 Dnipro 10/09/2015 Officers of the Dnipro city police department Abrasions (arms, wrists, knees); bruise (ear) Arrest and detention on 10-11/09/2015: The applicant was arrested without a court warrant (and in absence of statutory grounds for arrest without a warrant) at about 1   a.m. on 10/09/2015 and taken to the police station for questioning on suspicion of having participated in an armed assault. At about 5   p.m. on the same date he was transferred into custody of another police department, who staged his arrest under a false pretext of swearing in public and possession of illegal objects in order to secure his availability for questioning in connection with the aforementioned armed assault. At about 6   p.m. on 11/09/2015 the applicant was released.