FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 24753/06 Yuriy Aleksandrovich SHEVCHENKO against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section), sitting on 10 May 2016 as a Committee composed of:

André Potocki , President, Ganna Yudkivska , Síofra O ’ Leary , judges, and Milan Blaško , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2006 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Yuriy Aleksandrovich Shevchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Vinnytsya .

2 . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented, most recently, by their Acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk , of the Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4. On 12 August 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a double murder.

5 . According to the applicant, in October 2005, while he was in detention, he watched a programme on a television channel, Inter , containing a report on his case. In it, two investigators , I. and S. , expressed opinions as to the applicant ’ s guilt. During the programme the applicant ’ s photograph was displayed . A number of similar programmes were broadcast by other television channels during the period of the pre-trial investigation.

6. On 4 December 2005 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, commenced the trial of the applicant. The applicant was assisted by a lawyer.

7 . On 14 December 2005 the trial court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

8 . The applicant appealed on points of law, claiming in particular that his right to the presumption of innocence had been infringed by the investigators, who had appeared on television and expressed opinions as to his guilt.

9 . On 11 April 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as unfounded. It stated in particular that the television programmes had not affected the trial court ’ s factual findings.

10 . On 10 January 2011 the application was communicated and the Government were requested to provide recordings and/or transcripts of the relevant television programmes.

11 . On 22 February 2011 a prosecutor stated to the Government ’ s Agent, in response to her query , that investigator I. had indeed given interviews in 2005 about the applicant ’ s case to the Inter and Kyiv television channels, but without disclosing any of the applicant ’ s personal data or displaying any photographs of him.

12 . On 3 and 31 March 2011 , respectively , the Inter and Kyiv television channels informed the Government ’ s Agent that they no longer had any materials relat ing to the broadcasts in question and were not required by law to preserve records of their broadcasts for such a long time.

B. Relevant domestic law

13. Section 48 §§ 4 and 5 of the Television and Radio Act provides that all broadcast program me s must be recorded and stored for fourteen days after broadcast. If a complaint is lodged about a program me , a recording of that must be preserved for the duration of the relevant proceedings .

COMPLAINTS

14. The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to the presumption of innocence was breached because during the pre-trial investigation the investigators in charge of his criminal case appeared on television and expressed opinions as to his guilt.

15. The applicant also raised a number of other complaints, relying on Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

16. The applicant complained that the investigators ’ interviews had breached his right to be presumed innocent , as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

17. The Government submitted that because of the passage of time and despite their best efforts they had been unable to locate recordings or transcripts of the television programmes in question , in particular because the two-week time-limit set by domestic law for the storage of recordings of broadcast programmes had long expired by the time the application had been communicated .

B. Other complaints

20. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant ’ s complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2016 .

Milan BlaÅ¡ko André Potocki              Deputy Registrar President