CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2024

.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 } Published on 16 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64361/17 Oleksandr Mykhaylovych KOBYLYANSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 23 August 2017 communicated on 26 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaints about the unreasonable length of the criminal investigation against him, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement following application of the undertaking not to abscond, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention. On 25 June 2012 a notification of suspicion in the framework of the criminal investigation into an abuse of power by a group of police officers (unlawful use of force and detention of an individual) was served on the applicant. On the same day an undertaking not to abscond was imposed on him. On 9 May 2023 the Malynovskyi District Court of Odesa terminated the criminal investigation against the applicant as time barred. The court also lifted an undertaking not to abscond that was imposed on the applicant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4, by virtue of the undertaking, which he was obliged to give, not to abscond? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   2   §   3 of Protocol No. 4? 3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?