CEDH · CASELAW;STATEMENTOFFACTS;ENG — 2 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6757/07 Valeriy Yegorovych SIDOROV against Ukraine STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Valeriy Yegorovych Sidorov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 17 June 1999 the Novokakhovskiy Town Court gave the applicant a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment for embezzlement of State property and placed him on probation for two years. The applicant was also fined 680 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). He was precluded from changing his place of residence without permission and had to report regularly to the police. On 19 July 2001 following an application by the State Department for the Execution of Sentences, the same court decided that the applicant had not complied with the terms of his probation and should serve his sentence. On 27 September 2001 the applicant was arrested. According to the applicant, he was asked to go to the police station “in connection with a minor issue”; however, upon arrival he was arrested and detained for ten hours without food or water before being transferred to a temporary detention centre. On 8 April 2003 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 19 July 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The applicant was released on the same day. On 29 April 2003 the Novokakhovskiy Town Court found that the request for the applicant’s imprisonment had been time-barred as it was submitted to the court by the relevant authorities on 4 July 2001 (that is, more than two years after the applicant was sentenced). The court considered the applicant to be of good character. The court also found that nobody had explained to the applicant the terms of his probation and that the sole failure to pay the fine could not serve as a ground for changing probation to imprisonment. The applicant instituted proceedings in the court claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of his unlawful imprisonment. On 5 May 2004 the Novokakhovsky Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 2,908.57 and UAH 3,792.5 [1] in compensation for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage respectively, caused by his unlawful detention. The applicant appealed, challenging the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 21 July 2004 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 5 May 2004. On 21 May 2007 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. On 15 September 2008 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the decision of 5 May 2004 had been enforced in full. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the decision of 19 July 2001 was taken in his absence and that the court breached various procedural requirements. He further complains about the way in which he was arrested on 27   September 2001 and the conditions of his detention at the police station. The applicant complains that his detention was unlawful and that the compensation awarded for it was insufficient. The applicant finally complains of the lengthy enforcement of the decision of 5 May 2004. The applicant invokes Articles 5 §§ 1 and 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant awarded sufficient compensation?   3. Does the lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of 5 May 2004 given in the applicant’s favour disclose a breach of his right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and further constitute an unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? [1] At the material time around 439.25 and 572.74 euros