CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 février 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 138 February 2011 Kharchenko v. Ukraine - 40107/02 Judgment 10.2.2011 [Section V] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to take measures to eliminate structural problems relating to pre-trial detention   Facts – The applicant was arrested on suspicion of embezzlement of company funds. He was held in a pre-trial detention centre for over two years while the investigation was pending before being released after giving an undertaking not to abscond. The prosecution was ultimately discontinued for lack of evidence. In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia , of the unlawfulness and length of his detention and of inadequate review procedures (Article 5 §§   1, 3 and   4). Law – Article 46: The Court found violations of Article 5 §§   1, 3 and   4 of the Convention (and also of Article   3, on account of the conditions of detention). Violations of Article   5 could be said to be recurrent in cases against Ukraine and raised the issue of what measures were required for Ukraine to comply with its legal obligation under Article   46 of the Convention. Although two issues of concern had now been addressed by legislative amendments (the prosecutor’s power to order and extend pre-trial detention had been repealed and time spent studying the case file was now included in the calculation of the length of pre-trial detention), others remained. Thus, in many cases detention between the end of the investigation and the beginning of the trial was not covered by any court order, while court orders made during the trial fixed no time-limits for further detention (Article 5 §   1   (c)); instead of reviewing whether continued detention was still justified, the domestic courts often referred to the same grounds throughout what were sometimes lengthy periods of detention (Article 5 §   3); and, lastly, procedures for review by the domestic courts of the lawfulness of the detention were unclear, cumbersome and did not protect against arbitrariness (Article 5 §   4). Having regard to the structural nature of these problems, specific reforms in Ukraine’s legislation and administrative practice were urgently required. The Court left it to the State, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to determine the most appropriate way to address the problems and requested the Government to submit a reform strategy within six months from the date the judgment became final. Article 41: EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes