FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SOROKOUMOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 44584/13 and 4 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 September 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sorokoumov and Others v. Ukraine,

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

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President,

Ivana Jelić ,

Kateřina Šimáčková , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2022,

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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads 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.

11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded 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 Kharchenko , cited above, Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, §§ 286 ‑ 87, 30 April 2013), Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015), Ignatov , cited above, and Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021).

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 (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above, § 57), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It also rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction made by the applicant in application no. 13511/15.

14. The Court further 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,

(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 29 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

Acting Deputy 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’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Period of detention

Length of detention

Specific defects

Other complaints under

well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

44584/13

01/07/2013

Sergey Nikolayevich SOROKOUMOV

1965Larisa Vladimirovna Obukhova

Mirnoye

13/10/2010 to

13/02/2012

03/05/2012 to

26/03/2013

1 year and 4 months and 1 day

10 months and 24 days

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention –

No effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art. 5 (3) (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013, and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).

1,800

250

13511/15

03/03/2015

Denys Oleksandrovych TYMOFEYEV

1983Oleksandr Gennadiyovych Posternak

Kyiv

22/12/2014 to

19/04/2016

1 year and 3 months and 29 days

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

800

250

17673/20

02/04/2020

Maksym Volodymyrovych KALENYUK

1991Oleksandr Viktorovych Notskyy

ChernivtsÑ–

25/07/2017 to

21/05/2018

10/12/2018 to

21/02/2020

9 months and 27 days

1 year and 2 months and 12 days

fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal (submitted on 08/10/2019) against the court’s ruling of 04/10/2019 on extension of detention until 04/12/2019 was examined two months later, on 09/12/2019

1,600

250

23233/20

29/04/2020

Oleksandr Vasylyovych YAKUSHYK

1991Oleksandr Viktorovych

Notskyy ChernivtsÑ–

25/07/2017 to

21/05/2018

10/12/2018 to

21/02/2020

9 months and 27 days

1 year and 2 months and 12 days

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;

fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal of 08/10/2019 against the court’s ruling of 04/10/2019 on extension of detention until 04/12/2019 was examined two months later, on 09/12/2019.

1,600

250

54168/20

18/11/2020

Roman Oleksandrovych ANTONOV

1994Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Ignatov

Dnipro

11/12/2015 to

23/05/2017

28/09/2018 to

23/04/2020

1 year and 5 months and 13 days

1 year and 6 months and 27 days

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art 5-3 ( Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013, and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015);

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - length from 06/05/2015 to 18/05/2020 - 2 levels of jurisdiction;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings

2,400

250[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.