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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2BF5EB6D { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 30 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 38264/22 and 16498/23 Ivan Oleksandrovych BUBNOV against Ukraine and Darya Grygorivna KRYGINA against Ukraine lodged on 11 July 2022 and 30 March 2023 respectively communicated on 23 March 2023, 14 September 2023 and 12 June 2025 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS 1.     Does the Government’s derogation under Article 15 of the Convention apply in the present cases in respect of the applicants’ Article 5 rights? If so, were the decisions which are the subject of the applicants’ complaints justified and limited to what was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation? 2.     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 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 38264/22 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty from 11 to 21 April 2022 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s continued detention, which was deemed to be extended in view of relevant competent court’s inability to hold a hearing on such an extension, compatible with the requirements of that Article? 2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article   5   § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Taran v. Ukraine , no.   31898/06, §§   87-90, 17   October 2013; Lelyuk v. Ukraine , no. 24037/08, §§ 50-59, 17   November   2016)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 16498/23 Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her 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)?