CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2023

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 30 January 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33124/17 Oleksandr Mykolayovych UKRAYINETS against Ukraine lodged on 28 April 2017 communicated on 9 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns various issues under Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the Convention related to the criminal investigation against the applicant and his detention thereof. On 30 November 2016 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of human trafficking. 25 hours later he was served a formal notification of suspicion. On 3   December 2016 the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Babushkinskyy Court”) ordered his detention with reference to the gravity of charges and the risks of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation and influencing witnesses. The domestic courts rejected, without giving relevant reasons, the applicant’s complaints that he should have been released 24 hours after his arrest since a notification of suspicion had not been served on him on time [1] . The applicant’s detention was extended by the courts a number of times mainly with reference to the reasons indicated in the initial court order. On 5 September 2019 he was released from detention and placed under house arrest. During the court hearings of 2 and 3 December 2016, 24   January, 14 and 20 March 2017 the applicant was held in a cage. According to available information, the trial against the applicant is ongoing before the first instance court. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was held in a cage during the hearings of 2 and 3 December 2016, 24 January, 14 and 20 March 2017 in the Babushkinskyy Court. He furthermore complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the above complaint. The applicant also complains under Article 5 of the Convention that: -     he was unlawfully detained upon expiration of 24 hours from his arrest without a notification of suspicion being served on him since the domestic law obliged the authorities to release a person if he/she was not served a notification of suspicion upon expiration of the above-mentioned time-limit (Article 5 § 1); -     his detention was unjustified and lengthy (Article 5 § 3); -     the courts failed to address his complaints regarding his unlawful detention (Article 5 § 4). Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case are unreasonable long. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage during the court hearings which were held at the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk on 2 and 3   December 2016, 24 January, 14 and 20 March 2017 (see   Svinarenko and   Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113-39, ECHR   2014 (extracts) and Korban v. Ukraine , no.   26744/16, §§ 132-36, 4   July 2019)? 2.     Was the applicant’s detention without a notification of suspicion being served on him 24 hours after his arrest compatible with the “lawfulness” requirement within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5   § 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ignatov v.   Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§   34 ‑ 37, 15 December 2016)? Was it compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement as provided by Article 5   §   3 of the Convention? 4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 §   4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine , no. 2161/02, §§ 97-110, 28 October 2010)? 5.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention? 6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? [1] Article 278 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a notification of suspicion shall be served on an arrested person no later than 24 hours after his/her arrest. Article 278 § 3 provides that an arrested person shall be immediately released if he/she was not served a notification of suspicion 24 hours after his/her arrest.