Information Note on the Court’s case-law 58

November 2003

Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (dec.) - 54825/00

Decision 25.11.2003 [Section II]

Article 5

Article 5-3

Length of pre-trial detention

Length of detention on remand: admissible

The applicant, a former bank manager, was detained in April 1997 on suspicion of having committed unlawful currency transactions. He was subsequently charged on this ground as well as of abuse of power, fraud and forgery. The applicant unsuccessfully complained to the District Court for the quashing of his arrest order. His release on bail was refused, and the detention was extended on successive occasions to permit additional investiga tions by the prosecution. Several times during his detention, as a result of having gone on hunger-strike, the applicant was subjected to force-feeding, which he claims caused him substantial mental and physical suffering. He also maintains that he was dep rived of adequate medical treatment whilst remanded in custody, and that the conditions of detention (hygiene, bedding and other conditions) were unsatisfactory. Although the maximum statutory period of detention in the applicant's case expired in Septembe r 1998, he was only released in February 2000. Prior to his release, he unsuccessfully lodged complaints on the unconstitutionality of his detention with the Constitutional Court. In February 2001, the City Court sentenced the applicant to five and a half years' imprisonment for repeated financial fraud, forgery and abuse of power. On the basis of the Amnesty Law, and since he had been detained for nearly three years, the court dispensed him from serving the sentence.

Admissible under Articles 3, 5 § 1 (c) and 5 § 3: The Court could not consider the applicant's time in custody outside its jurisdiction ratione temporis, that is, prior to 11 September 1997, when examining the complaint about the length of the detention. The Government's objection that the appl icant had not exhausted domestic remedies was, however, rejected. Besides the first episode of force-feeding, which was inadmissible as having been raised out of time, the other incidents on this ground of complaint were admissible.

© Council of Europe/E uropean Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes