CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 518/20 Sergiy Viktorovych KRIT against Ukraine lodged on 12 December 2019 communicated on 6 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application principally concerns the lawfulness and justification of the applicant’s detention under Article 5 of the Convention. On 11 April 2018 the applicant was arrested in the framework of criminal investigation into a robbery and murder committed in a group. On 13   April 2018 the Boryspil Local Court of Kyiv Region ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention referring to the gravity of charges, his unemployment and risks of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation and influencing the victim and witnesses. No further details to justify his detention were provided. The applicant’s detention was extended several times mainly on the same reasons as those indicated in the court’s initial detention order. On 2 April 2019 the Svyatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv again extended the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2019. The applicant appealed against that decision arguing that his pre-trial detention should not have lasted until 11 April 2019 since according to the domestic legislation, the duration of a suspect’s pre-trial detention could not exceed one year. His appeal was examined and allowed in part on 27 October 2021 by the Kyiv Court of Appeal which found that the judge of the local court had had no right to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention beyond 11 April 2019 since on that date his pre-trial detention had reached its maximum term. The Court of Appeal furthermore modified the decision of the local court authorising the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 11 April 2019. In the meantime, on 26 April 2019, after the list of charges against the applicant had been submitted for examination, the Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region acting as the trial court had extended the applicant’s detention for another term. On 4 June 2024 the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv found the applicant guilty of banditry, robbery, unlawful arms possession, and unlawful seizure of a vehicle and sentenced him to twelve years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The appeal proceedings are currently pending. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention after 11 April 2019, when the maximum term for that detention set by the law had expired, was unlawful. He further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his overall detention was unjustified and lengthy. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention that the examination of his appeal against the court decision of 2 April 2019 was too long. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 27 October 2021 declaring the applicant’s detention between 11 and 26 April 2019, as authorised by the Svyatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv on 2   April 2019, de facto unlawful, constitute a basis for him to claim compensation (compare Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine , nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, §§ 90-92, 16   September 2022)? If so, has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements regarding the victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies, as provided for by Article 35 of the   Convention? The Government are invited to provide the Court with the   relevant case-law examples showing the existence and effectiveness of a domestic remedy in the applicant’s case.   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the applicant’s detention between 11 and 26 April 2019?   3.     Was the applicant’s detention from 11 April 2018 to 4 June 2024 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); Ignatov v. Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§   34-37, 15 December 2016 and Korban v.   Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§   159-181, 4 July 2019)? Was   it   compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement as provided by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   4.     Did the proceedings concerning the examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Svyatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv of 2 April 2019 comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the   Convention, in particular with that of speediness (see Kharchenko   v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, § 86, 10 February 2011)?