Published on 19 April 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 14335/18 Denys Oleksandrovych GORDYEYEV against Ukraine lodged on 25 April 2018 communicated on 30 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 that his pre-trial detention was unreasonably lengthy and therefore unlawful, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, on 27 March 2015 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder of a Security Service officer. On 28 March 2015 the court ordered his pre-trial detention. Subsequently, the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was extended on at least twenty occasions (according to the latest information provided by the applicant in April 2018, on 15 March 2018 his pre-trial detention was extended until 12 May 2018). As it appears from media reports, on 7 May 2019 the applicant ’ s preventive measure was changed into house arrest. According to the latest information provided by the applicant in April 2018, the criminal proceedings against him were still pending.

The application also concerns the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, respectively, about the alleged lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the domestic courts dealing with his case and about the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence in his case. In particular, on 27 March 2015 President Poroshenko made the following post on his Facebook page: “This morning ... the [Security Service] ... detained the murderer of the [Security Service] officer...”. The post was accompanied with a photo of the applicant taken during his arrest. According to the applicant, on the same day his name was mentioned in the media and became known to the public. He also submits in this connection that the courts dealing with his case were not independent and impartial .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies for the purposes of his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the domestic courts dealing with his case? If so, was there a breach of above provision?

4. 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?

The parties are requested to provide information and relevant documents concerning the proceedings in the applicant ’ s case after April 2018.