LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 80643/12;24135/13;39615/13;47396/13;55766/13;61635/13;73056/13;73715/13;60061/14;73810/14;24675/16 • ECHR ID: 001-179862
Document date: January 11, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 80643/12;24135/13;39615/13;47396/13;55766/13;61635/13;73056/13;73715/13;60061/14;73810/14;24675/16 • ECHR ID: 001-179862
Document date: January 11, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
( Application no. 80643/12 and 10 others -
see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mikhaylov and Others v. Ukraine ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
André Potocki , President, Síofr a O ’ Leary, Mārtiņš Mits , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2017 ,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long . They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“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.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, KudÅ‚ a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants ’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founde d within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine , (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above).
IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention ;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt André Potocki
Acting D eputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
( excessive length of pre-trial detention )
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros) [1]
80643/12
05/12/2012
Ruslan Aleksandrovich Mikhaylov
07/01/1977
Vladimir Ivanovich Fedorets
Zaporizhzhya
04/11/2006 to 16/04/2008
20/10/2008 to 31/03/2010
30/08/2011 to 21/06/2013
1 year, 5 months and 13 days
1 years, 5 months and 12 days
1 year, 9 months and 23 days
2,900
24135/13
22/03/2013
Gennadiy Viktorovich Kuzmenko
17/12/1972
25/02/2011 to 19/03/2012
09/10/2012 to 01/10/2013
1 year and 24 days
11 months and 23 days
1,300
39615/13
10/06/2013
Yuriy Aleksandrovich Lysenko
20/11/1980
15/12/2011 to 13/08/2014
2 years, 7 months and 30 days
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: reiterated reasoning in standard terms in the decisions on continued detention
2,200
47396/13
10/07/2013
Ruslan Viktorovych Levchenko
10/09/1982
18/08/2009 to 24/10/2011
23/02/2012 to 17/03/2014
2 years, 2 months and 7 days
2 years and 23 days
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: lack of judicial review of the continued detention; complaint raised under Art. 13 falls to be examined under Art. 5 (4)
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: the criminal proceedings initiated on 20/08/2009 still pending (two instances)
3,400
55766/13
25/08/2013
Aleksandr Grigoryevich Shkolenko
03/08/1987
21/10/2009 to 08/10/2010
10/05/2012 to 07/11/2012
14/03/2013 to 11/07/2013
11 months and 18 days
5 months and 29 days
3 months and 28 days
1,200
61635/13
17/09/2013
Vladimir Vasilyevich Kolos
07/09/1979
09/11/2008 to 15/12/2010
15/03/2012 to 05/06/2014
2 years, 1 month and 7 days
2 years, 2 months and 22 days
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: 5 years and 8 months before two instances. The proceedings are still pending.
3,400
73056/13
13/11/2013
Vitaliy Grigoryevich Krivonos
23/02/1986
10/04/2010 to 22/07/2011
21/12/2012 to 22/07/2014
1 year, 3 months and 13 days
1 year, 7 months and 2 days
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: the court did not consider properly the applicant ’ s petitions for release submitted be tween 10/04/2010 and 15/01/2014 - the applicant provided two well-founded petitions.
2,500
73715/13
16/11/2013
Liliy a Volodymyrivn a Borodina
27/04/1975
30/05/2011 to 12/06/2014
3 years and 14 days
1,900
60061/14
23/08/2014
Vladyslav Mykolayovych Popovych
30/11/1980
Oleksandr Vadymovych Zarutskyy
Kyiv
13/04/2010 to 29/05/2012
11/06/2013 to 25/02/2014
2 years, 1 month and 17 days
8 months and 15 days
1,900
73810/14
17/11/2014
Vladimir Ivanovich Zaritskiy
24/02/1969
Elen a Aleksandrovn a Tupchiy
Kyiv
15/12/2011 to 13/08/2014
2 years, 7 months and 30 days
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: t he applicant lodged numerous petitions for release which were rejected by the court without proper reasoning.
2,200
24675/16
21/04/2016
Sergiy Sergiyovych Zayevyy
26/10/1992
Dmytro Viktorovych Yagunov
Kyiv
04/03/2013 to 30/10/2015
2 years, 7 months and 27 days
Art. 6 (1) - excessive l ength of criminal proceedings: t he proceedings have been pending for 3 years and 4 months at the first-instance.
2,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
