CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.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 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 23002/20 and 29341/20 Yuliya Leonidivna KIYAN against Ukraine and Andriy Sergiyovych ANTONENKO against Ukraine lodged on 18 May 2020 and 23 June 2020 respectively communicated on 15 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention and the alleged violation of their right to be presumed innocent. According to the applicants, on 12 December 2019 the police arrested them without prior court orders on suspicion of the murder of a well-known journalist Mr Sh. Their arrest was followed by a press conference attended by several high-ranking officials, including the Prosecutor General and the President of Ukraine, during which public statements were made concerning the applicants’ alleged role in Mr Sh.’s murder. On 13 and 14 December 2019 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicants’ detention referring in general terms to the gravity of charges, the risks of absconding and of influencing witnesses. Their detention was further extended multiple times until it was replaced with house arrest (on 11 August 2020 in respect of Ms Kiyan, formerly Kuzmenko, in application no. 23002/20; and on 30 April 2021 in respect of Mr Antonenko in application no. 29341/20). In August 2020 the applicants, together with another individual, were committed for trial. Since 2024 the proceedings have been suspended due to the military service of some of the accused. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 of the Convention, both applicants complain that their arrest was unlawful as it was carried out without prior court orders and because the actual time of their arrests did not correspond to the time indicated in the relevant police reports. Invoking Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (both applicants) and Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (the applicant in application no.   23002/20), they further argue that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence, that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their continued and lengthy detention, and that they were not afforded an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention. The applicants also complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the public statements made by the high-ranking officials violated their right to be presumed innocent. The applicant in application no. 29341/20 additionally complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the above-mentioned alleged violations of Article 5. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of their complaints regarding the allegedly unlawful arrest on 12 December 2019, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine , nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, §§ 60 and 125, 16 September 2022)? If so, was the applicants’ detention, based on the relevant arrest reports, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rytikov v. Ukraine , no.   52855/19, §§ 24-29, 23 May 2024)?   2.     Was the applicants’ 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), Ignatov v.   Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§   40-42, 15 December 2016, and Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§   154-57, 4 July 2019)?   3.     Did the proceedings by which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 §   4 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 84-86, 10   February 2011, Kleutin v. Ukraine , no. 5911/05, §§ 122-26, 23 June 2016, and Vadym Melnyk , cited above, §§ 122-23)?   4.     Did the applicant in application no. 29341/20 have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article   5   §§   1, 3 and 4, as required by Article 5   § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Rytikov , cited above, §§ 32-37)?   5.     In respect of their complaints under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Alperin v. Ukraine , no. 41028/20, §   69, 10 October 2024)? If so, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, given the public statements of high-ranking State officials in respect of the criminal proceedings against the applicants (see, for example, Butkevičius v.   Lithuania , no. 48297/99, §§ 49-54, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), and Korban , cited above, §§   230-32)?