Published on 31 May 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 33066/16 Oleksandr Oleksiyovych MELNYK against Ukraine lodged on 30 May 2016 communicated on 10 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is suspected of having ordered two contract killings: of a local court ’ s judge in February 2014 and of the Kremenchuk city mayor in July 2014. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court. His application before the Court mainly concerns the following issues:

- alleged inadequacy of the medical care in detention, in particular, on account of the applicant ’ s continued inability to obtain inpatient medical treatment for a number of heart and urinary diseases; although his hospitalisation was recommended on 12 October 2017, it was apparently not carried out because of the disagreement between the Poltava Kyivskyy District Court (the court having territorial jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the pre-trial detention centre in question) and the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (acting as a first-instance court in the applicant ’ s criminal case) as to which of them was competent to deal with that issue (Article 3 of the Convention);

- allegedly poor conditions of the applicant ’ s transportation and detention on the hearing days, including heat and lack of ventilation in the vehicles and lack of nutrition (Article 3 of the Convention);

- allegedly excessive length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention lasting since 4 September 2014 until now (including a brief period of his twenty-four-hour house arrest from 12 to 20 July 2017) (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention);

- allegedly deficient judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, given that on several occasions (notably, on 7 October 2016 and 24 January 2017) it was carried out with the involvement of lay judges whose mandate had expired (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention);

- alleged lack of a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, given that sometimes his appeals were not examined for over two months (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention);

- alleged violation of the applicant ’ s right to the presumption of innocence on account of: (a) public statements of the Minister of the Interior and the latter ’ s adviser in September 2014 about the arrest of the applicant allegedly labelling him as “the murder contractor”; (b) the alleged reference by the prosecutor to the applicant as the perpetrator in the investigated murder case, while giving comments to mass media on 10 September 2014; and (c) the publication on 19 April 2016 at the website of the Kobelyaky Town Court of an information note about a rally conducted on 14 April 2016 near the court by those “interested in the justice being done in respect of the murderers” (Article 6 § 2 of the Convention ) ; and

- alleged violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life on account of the above-mentioned public statements and the lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard (Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention ).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant provided with medical care in detention in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s transport to and from court hearings during his pre-trial detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Was he provided with appropriate nutrition on the days of the court hearings?

3. Has the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention been in compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

4. Was the procedure, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was it carried out with the involvement of lay judges whose mandate had expired?

5. Were the applicant ’ s appeals regarding his pre-trial detention examined “speedily”, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

6. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies for the purposes of his complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention? If so, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by the above provision, respected in the present case?

7. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention?

8. Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy in respect of his Article 8 complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?