CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42071/19 Vladyslav Yevgeniyovych PAVLISHCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 29 July 2019 communicated on 30 August 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated murder and raises the following issues: -           under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention: the allegedly excessive and unjustified length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (since 11 May 2013 until today, excluding the period from 26   March 2014 to 9   February 2016, during which the applicant was imprisoned following the verdict of the Bilozerka Town Court); -           under Article 6 § 1: the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant – it appears that they remain pending before the first-instance court, about ten years after their beginning; -           under Article 8: restrictions on family visits in detention, including a constant ban on long-term family visits and numerous arbitrary refusals of short-term meetings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the decisions of the domestic courts ordering and extending his pre-trial detention contain sufficient reasons to justify it (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 79 ‑ 81 and 99, 10   February 2011, and Ignatov v.   Ukraine , §§ 40 ‑ 42 and 52, no.   40583/15, 15   December 2016)?   2.     Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Nechay v. Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§   69 ‑ 72, 1   July 2021)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life, contrary to   Article 8   of the Convention, on account of the refusals of family visits during his pre-trial detention (see   Shalimov   v. Ukraine , no.   20808/02, §§ 84-91, 4 March 2010, and Moroz v. Ukraine , no.   5187/07, §§   84-86, 2   March 2017)?