CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2025

.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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52459/18 Marina Anatolyevna KOVTUN against Ukraine lodged on 23 October 2018 communicated on 16 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaints that her rights under Article   5 § 3 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention were breached in the criminal proceedings against her on charges of terrorism. On 16 November 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion that she, after having undergone training on armed sabotage activities in Russia, obtained and stored explosive devices and weapons and organised a terrorist act, an explosion in a bar in Kharkiv on 9 November 2014, which had injured thirteen people. On 18 November 2014 the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court relied, in particular, on her links with pro-Russian individuals and Russian nationals possibly involved in subversive and sabotage activities against Ukraine. The “systematic nature” of those activities showed that there was a risk of the applicant’s absconding and reoffending. Subsequently, the courts repeatedly extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In some pre-trial detention decisions, they referred to the so-called Bail Exclusion Clause (Article 176 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), a provision which, at the relevant time, excluded the granting of bail and imposition of other non-custodial preventive measures on persons accused of terrorism and certain national security offences. The Clause was declared unconstitutional on 25 June 2019 (see   Grubnyk v. Ukraine , no.   58444/15, §§   40, 50, 53 ‑ 56, 116-30, 17 September 2020). On 18 February 2015 the head of the directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine in Kharkiv Region Mr. P. made statements about the applicant’s case at a press briefing. In the context of discussing exchanges of prisoners with Russia, he said: “Concerning Stena ? [1] Marina Kovtun, who was on the prisoner exchange list, I and the regional prosecutors contacted the Prosecutor General and he supported us, she was struck off the list. The Prosecutor General’s position was ... that she had real blood on her hands, contrary possibly to other explosions. This year we arrested another co-conspirator of the explosion in Stena , who had supplied a stock of weapons to her. You may remember that there were images when we searched her garage, the number of weapons that were there...” [2] The applicant lodged a defamation claim arguing that those statements were contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence. The courts rejected her claim, considering that the relevant passages had been about the applicant’s participation in a possible prisoner exchange and not about commission of any specific offence by her. On 4 April 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions (the applicant claims that her lawyer received that decision on 23 April 2018). On 7 October 2019 the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court convicted the applicant on the above-mentioned charges and sentenced her to eleven years’ imprisonment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular: (i)     did the courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s detention and did the national authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§   79-81 and 99, 10 February 2011, and Buzadji v.   the   Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 87, 5 July 2016)? (ii)     was the domestic courts’ reliance on Article 176 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Grubnyk v. Ukraine , no.   58444/15, §§   110-30, 17 September 2020, and compare, for example, Avraimov v.   Ukraine , no. 71818/17, §§ 57-72, 25 March 2021 [Committee], Aleksandrovskaya v. Ukraine , no. 38718/16, §§   105-13, 25   March 2021 [Committee]; Kraynyak v. Ukraine , 68353/17, §§ 16-25, 16   February 2023 [Committee])?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? [1] The bar where the bombing attack took place. [2] A recording of the relevant press briefing, in Russian, can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv9h96Hkfh4 (last visited on 25 November 2024).