CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 Application no. 31555/20 Sergiy Vasylyovych SOKOLOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 June 2020 communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the justification of the applicant’s house arrest, allegedly in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. On 28 January 2020 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a hooliganism. According to the investigation, the applicant who had attempted to enter court premises to be present in court proceedings allegedly in his capacity of journalist, had been involved in a confrontation with the court guard service, had behaved aggressively and had resisted to lawful orders of law-enforcement authorities. On 31 January 2020 the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa (“the DistrictCourt”) ordered the applicant’s 24-hour house arrest referring in general terms to the seriousness of charges against him, his unemployment and lack of family ties, and the risk of his influencing other participants in the proceedings or otherwise hindering the investigation, or reoffending. The court decision provided no further explanation. On 11 February 2020 the above court decision was upheld on appeal. On 12 March 2020 the District Court reconsidered the applicant’s preventive measure, following an application of his defense lawyer, and altered it for a house arrest during night hours. The criminal case against the applicant is currently pending before the trial court. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his placement under the 24-hour house arrest was unjustified and that the District Court failed to provide relevant reasons for its decision and failed to consider application of an alternative preventive measure. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant’s stay under 24-hour house arrest from 31 January to 12   March 2020 amount to deprivation of liberty? If so, was the applicant’s detention during the above period 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 Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 138, 154-81, 4 July 2019)?