CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Published on 30 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35121/22 Andriy Vasylyovych FEDOSEYEV against Ukraine and four other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications principally concern complaints under Article 5 of the Convention regarding the applicants’ arrest and/or detention based on Article   615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable during martial law at the time of the Russian Federation’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This provision empowered prosecutors to arrest or detain a suspect without a relevant court order, or to extend detention if the competent court was unable to do so due to military activities in the respective area. The   applicants assert, in particular, that the relevant competent courts in their cases did not suspend their activities at the time of the events in question and were able to administer justice. The applicants also submit that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed the crimes of which they were accused, that the prosecutors who ordered their detention were not independent within the meaning of Article   5, that some periods of detention were automatically extended without a court decision, that their lengthy detention lacked sufficient justification, and that there was no effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Relevant details of each application can be found in the appended table.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS Does the Government’s derogation under Article 15 of the Convention apply in the present case in respect of the applicants’ rights under Articles   5   and 6? If so, were the decisions which are the subject of the applicants’ complaints justified and strictly limited to what was required by the exigencies of the situation? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 38272/22, 6810/23 AND 17265/23 Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was their detention ordered by the prosecutor “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   Were the applicants brought before a judge or another officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular, was the prosecutor who decided on the applicants’ initial detention an officer authorised to exercise judicial power? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 35121/22 AND 252/24 Were the applicants deprived of their liberty during the respective periods indicated in the appended table, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ continued detention, which was deemed to be extended in view of the relevant competent courts’ inability to hold a hearing on such an extension, compatible with the requirements of that Article? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 35121/22, 38272/22, 6810/23, 17265/23 AND   252/24 Was the applicants’ 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? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 38272/22, 6810/23 AND 17265/23 Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? Did the authorities comply with the requirement of speediness (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine, no.   40107/02, § 86, 10   February 2011)? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 35121/22 Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention during the respective period as specified in the appendix amount to a breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§   96-141, ECHR   2016)?   Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the above case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Merit v. Ukraine , no. 66561/01, § 72, 30 March 2004)?   Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on   Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by   Complaints raised 1. 35121/22 Fedoseyev v. Ukraine 09/07/2022 Andriy Vasylyovych FEDOSEYEV 1986 Dnipro Ukrainian Sergiy Oleksandrovych KULBACH Articles 3 and 13 (conditions of detention in the Kyiv Detention facility from 3 May 2018 onwards and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard – overcrowding, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, passive smoking, lack of laundry services)   Article 5 § 1 (automatic extension of detention without court order from 1 April to 25 May 2022)   Article 5 § 3 (unreasonable length of detention from 3 May 2018 to 9   December 2022)   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 (unreasonable length of criminal proceedings – seven years before two instances – and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard)   2. 38272/22 Kaplun v. Ukraine 05/07/2022 Vadym Viktorovych KAPLUN 1967 Kyiv Ukrainian Vitaliy Eduardovych POGOSYAN Article 5 § 1 (detention on the basis of the order issued by the prosecutor on 5 March 2022 after introduction of martial law; lack of reasonable suspicion)   Article 5 § 3 (lack of justification of detention order from 1 April 2022 onwards);   Article 5 § 4 (impossibility to challenge the lawfulness of detention ordered by the investigator)   3. 6810/23 Machykhin v. Ukraine 18/01/2023 Valeriy Anatoliyovych MACHYKHIN 1967 Dnipro Ukrainian Vitaliy Eduardovych POGOSYAN Article 5 § 1 (detention on the basis of the order issued by the prosecutor on 1 March 2022 after introduction of martial law; lack of reasonable suspicion)   Article 5 § 3 (the prosecutor detaining the applicant was not independent when ordering arrest)   Article 5 § 3 (unreasonable length of detention from 27 February 2022 onwards)   Article 5 § 4 (impossibility to challenge the lawfulness of arrest and detention by the prosecutor despite the existing procedure)   4. 17265/23 Uzbek v. Ukraine 08/04/2023 Volodymyr Pavlovych UZBEK 1979 Zaporizhzhya Ukrainian Volodymyr Yuriyovych NEVKRYTYY Article 5 § 1 (detention on the basis of the order issued by the prosecutor on 20 April 2022 after introduction of martial law; lack of reasonable suspicion)   Article 5 § 3 (lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention from 20 April 2022 onwards)   Article 5 § 4 (impossibility to challenge the lawfulness of arrest and detention by the prosecutor despite the existing procedure)   5. 252/24 Khachaturyan v.   Ukraine 24/11/2023 Artur Viktorovych KHACHATURYAN 1975 Kryvyy Rig Ukrainian Vitaliy Viktorovych GAVRYLENKO Article 5 § 1 (automatic extension of detention without court order from 27 July to 7 September 2023)   Article 5 § 3 (unreasonable length of detention from 12 August 2022 onwards)