CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 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 } Published on 12 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14585/19 Sergiy Sergiyovych KAPLUN against Ukraine lodged on 7 March 2019 communicated on 25 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s uninterrupted detention for 97 days between September and December 2018 for the purpose of executing eight decisions of the Okhtyrka Town Court taken between June 2014 and June 2015, by which the applicant was sentenced to administrative arrest for a period of ten to fifteen days for having driving in a state of intoxication. He complains under Article 5 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his detention, since the execution of the relevant court decisions was time-barred. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Lelyuk v. Ukraine , no. 24037/08, §§   43-47, 17 November 2016)? In particular, was the applicant’s administrative arrest, carried out more than three years after it had been ordered by the domestic courts, lawful, given that Article 303 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for a period of three months for the execution of an administrative penalty?