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 } .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 Application no. 31786/20 Yuriy Semenovych SMUSHKO against Ukraine lodged on 20 June 2020 communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention for the purpose of executing a judgment which was allegedly time barred, in breach of Article   5   § 1 of the Convention. On 14 September 2007 the Pervomayskyi District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea found the applicant guilty of breach of traffic rules which caused grave bodily injuries and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On 30 October 2007 the above judgment became final and enforceable. The applicant, who was under an undertaking not to abscond during the trial, remained at liberty and was arrested on 4 December 2018 for the alleged evasion the execution of the judgment of 14 September 2007. On 14 December 2018 the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Kharkiv, acting under Article 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Vadym   Melnyk v.   Ukraine , nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, §   57, 16   September 2022), refused the applicant’s complaint of unlawful detention, who claimed that the execution of the judgment of 14 September 2007 was time barred. The court established that the applicant had been arrested for the purpose of serving the   sentence pronounced in the judgment of 14   September 2007 which had been still enforceable. On 13 June 2019 the Poltava District Court of Poltava Region granted the applicant’s request to be exempted from serving his prison sentence and ruled on his release from prison. The court established that at the time of the applicant’s arrest on 4 December 2018 more than ten years had passed since the judgment of 14 September 2007 had become final and enforceable and its execution became time barred. The court furthermore dismissed as unsubstantiated the prosecutor’s argument that the applicant had evaded serving the sentence as there were no credible evidence to that effect and found that the police officers had neglected their duties when checking the whereabouts of the applicant who had been permanently living at the registered address. On 24 December 2019 the above decision was upheld on appeal. On the same day the applicant was released. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision of the Poltava District Court of Poltava Region of 13   June   2019 establishing negligence on the part of the police when checking the applicant’s whereabouts to enforce the sentence of the Pervomayskyi District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of 14 September 2007 constitute a basis for the applicant to claim compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention (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 in Article 35 of the   Convention? The Government are invited to provide the Court with the   relevant national case-law examples showing the existence and effectiveness of a domestic remedy in the applicant’s case.   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the   Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Lelyuk v. Ukraine , no. 24037/08, §§   43-47, 17 November 2016)? In particular, was the sentence of imprisonment pronounced in the judgment of the Pervomayskyi District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of 14 September 2007 still   enforceable at the moment of the applicant’s arrest on 4 December 2018 given the expiration of statutory time limit for execution of that sentence, as   having been established by the Poltava District Court of Poltava Region on 13 June 2019?