CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAD669EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45483/20 Sergiy Volodymyrovych GERASYMCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 30 September 2020 communicated on 17 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and detention, its justification as well as the lengthy examination of his appeals against court orders on extension of his detention. On 25 September 2019 the applicant was arrested without a prior court order on suspicion of infliction of grave bodily injuries in the course of an incident which took place on 22 September 2019. The relevant report stated that he was arrested “after a crime had been committed upon statements by an eyewitness or victim or following the indication of clear signs that he had just committed a crime”. No further details were given in the arrest report. On 27 September 2019 the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention referring in general to the gravity of charges, the risk of absconding, influencing a victim and witnesses and reoffending. On   15   October 2019 that decision was upheld on appeal. The courts of both instances did not address the applicant’s complaint that his arrest of 25   September 2019 without a prior court order was unlawful. The applicant’s detention was extended by the courts several times principally on the grounds that the risks indicated in the initial court order on the applicant’s detention persisted. The applicant appealed against the courts’ decisions extending his detention, however his appeals remained unexamined for a long time. The   details regarding the appeal procedures instituted by the applicant can be found in the appended table. On 19 March 2022, after the beginning of the Russian Federation’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, the public prosecutor of the Podilsk Local Prosecutor’s office in Kyiv informed the detention facility in which the applicant was held, that his detention was deemed to be extended automatically until 27 May 2022 on the basis of the provisions of Article 615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for details see Fedoseyev v.   Ukraine , no.   35121/22 and 4 others, communicated on 12 June 2025). According to available information, the criminal proceedings are pending before the trial court and the applicant remains in detention. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest on 25 September 2019 was unlawful. He also complains that automatic extension of his detention until 27 May 2022 on the basis of Article 615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was in breach of the domestic law and the Convention. He furthermore complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention lacked relevant justification and was excessively lengthy. Lastly, invoking Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the examination of his appeals against the court orders extending his detention was too long and on some instance was not carried out at all making the appeal procedure ineffective. APPENDIX   Date of decision of the 1 st instance court Date of lodging of appeal Date of decision of the Court of Appeal 1. 20/11/2019 25/11/2019 28/04/2020 accepted the applicant’s withdrawal of 24/04/2020 2. 20/12/2019 24/12/2019 27/04/2020 accepted the applicant’s withdrawal of 23/04/2020 3. 17/02/2020 24/02/2020 19/05/2020 4. 10/04/2020 17/04/2020 02/07/2020 5. 11/06/2020 18/06/2020 19/11/2020 6. 18/09/2020 24/09/2020 17/11/2020   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant comply with the six-months’ time limit for lodging his complaint regarding the unlawful arrest on 25 September 2019, as   required by Article 35 of the Convention? If so, was the applicant’s detention, based on the arrest report, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rytikov v. Ukraine , no.   52855/19, §§ 24-29, 23   May2024)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty from 27 March to 27   May   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 the relevant competent court’s inability to hold a hearing on such an extension, compatible with the requirements of that Article?   3.     Was the applicant’s detention from 25 September 2019 onwards 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 appeals against the decisions indicated in the appended table 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)?