FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 28827/02 by Yuriy Vladimirovich ISAYEV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr R. Maruste , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yur iy Vladimirovich Isayev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and lives in the city of Kharki v , Ukraine .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 18 October 1995 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. Subsequently he was charged with illegal keeping of arms.

On 21 October 1995 the applicant was charged with a theft.

The applicant states that in November 1995 he was beaten by the investigation officers.

On 24 December 1996 – 10 January 1997 a medical expertise, prepared in the course of the applicant ’ s detention, established that the applicant had a peroneal nerve neuropathy and a partial paralysis of the right foot. The expert further concluded that these diseases could have been caused by an osteochondrosis, and that the applicant ’ s treatment could be performed in the Temporary Detention Unit.

On 30 May 1997 the Leninskyy District Court separated the two criminal proceedings against the applicant and remitted the case of theft for an additional investigation. The court stated inter alia that the case file contained a medical expertise according to which the applicant had been subjected to unlawful methods of investigation and had bodily injuries.

On 2 June 1997 the court sentenced the applicant to three and a half years ’ imprisonment for illegal keeping of arms. On 6 August 1997 the Balakleyskyy District Court amnestied the applicant. The applicant was subsequently released.

On 6 November 1997 the applicant was arrested again, possibly in the context of the criminal proceedings in the case of theft, and, according to him, beaten. By a letter of 27 January 1998 the prosecutor informed the applicant that on 3 December 1997 the medical expertise had established that he had had light bodily injuries.

In the meantime the applicant ’ s criminal case was transferred for examination to the Kharkiv Regional Court .

On 8 February 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court remitted the case to the prosecutor ’ s office for additional investigation. On 15 May 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed this decision and remitted the case back to the court.

On 6 September 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (former Kharkiv Regional Court ) remitted the case to the district court for examination because of the changes introduced to the Criminal Procedure Code on 12 July 2001, which provided that such type of cases had to be considered by the district courts.

On 20 February 2002 the applicant requested the court to provide him with a lawyer because his present lawyer, Mrs B., was not experienced and disagreed with the applicant ’ s concept of defence. Subsequently, the applicant was provided with another lawyer.

On 7 November 2002 the applicant again requested the court to replace his lawyer as his present lawyer, Mr S., had received a bar certificate only a month ago and had specialisation in civil and business law. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant also requested to replace another two lawyers, Mr A. and Mrs V., for similar reasons. The court rejected the applicant ’ s request to replace Mrs V. and she represented the applicant allegedly until July 2004. The applicant did not submit any information as to whether he was subsequently represented by a lawyer in the national courts.

On 19 December 2002 the doctors of the Detention Unit inspected the applicant and concluded that he suffered from a partial paralysis of his right arm and foot. He needed additional treatment in a specialised hospital.

On 27 March 2003 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a request to release the applicant as he suffered from a partial paralysis of the right side of the body and needed treatment. On the same date the co urt rejected this request. On 1 April 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against this decision.

On 8 July 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court of Kharkiv Region rejected the applicant lawyer ’ s request to release the applicant. In particular, the court held that the applicant ’ s detention was lawful and that the court was not competent to consider the issues of medical treatment of the detainees. However, the court noted that in the Temporary Detention Unit No. 27, where the applicant was detained, there were no neurologist, no neurosurgeon, no relevant medicaments and no possibility for a specialised treatment.

On 1 October 2003, given the state of his health, the applicant was released by the court upon an undertaking not to abscond.

On 29 July 2004 the Kharkivskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to five years, eleven months and 25 days ’ imprisonment for numerous robberies and burglaries. The applicant appealed against this judgment. Proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten by the investigation officers in November 1995 and in November 1997. He further complained under the same Article that his detention during six years without appropriate medical assistance amounted to torture.

The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about his lengthy pre-trial detention.

The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of proceedings in his case and about the failure of the domestic courts to provide him with a lawyer. He also complained that the criminal case against him was unlawful. The applicant complained that neither he, nor his lawyer was present during at the Supreme Court hearing on 15 May 2001, and that he did not have enough time to prepare his defence.

THE LAW

A. Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten by the investigation officers in November 1997. He further complained under the same Article that his detention during six years without appropriate medical assistance amounted to torture.

The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about his lengthy pre-trial detention.

The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings in his case.

The Articles invoked provide as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 5 § 3

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of th e s e complaint s and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

B. Other complaints

The Court has examined the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged beatings in November 1995 and considers that it is related to the events which occurred before 11 September 1997 , the date on which the Convention came into force in respect of Ukraine . It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.

The Court has further examined the remainder of the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and considers that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as premature, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides t o adjourn the examination of the complaints concerning Articles 3 (the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant in November 1997 and the absence of an appropriate medical treatment), 5 § 3 (the length of the detention on remand) and 6 § 1 (the length of the proceedings) of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President