Published on 6 April 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 51842/15 Vasyl Fedorovych STOYETSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 9 October 2015 communicated on 19 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s allegations under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about being arrested without prior court decision in breach of the requirements of domestic law and about the authorities ’ failure to bring him promptly to a court. It furthermore concerns his allegation under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the failure of the Court of Appeal to examine the lawfulness of his arrest and detention.

On 25 March 2015 at 12.20 pm the applicant, Deputy Head of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine at the material time, was arrested during the session of the Government of Ukraine in the context of the investigation into extortion and embezzlement, which had previously been initiated on 23 March 2015. The relevant arrest report indicated that the applicant was arrested whilst committing a crime or attempting to commit one. It did not indicate more details explaining the reasons for the applicant ’ s arrest. On 28 March 2015 at 13.00 pm the applicant was brought before the Kyiv Pechersky y District Court which ordered the applicant ’ s detention at 13.10 pm. The court also ruled that the applicant could be released from detention on payment of bail. The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia, that his arrest had been effected without prior court decision and that he had been brought to a court after the expiry of the seventy-two hours ’ time limit allowing to detain a suspect without court decision, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine. On 9 April 2015 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the applicant ’ s detention. The Court of Appeal did not address the applicant ’ s grievances regarding the lawfulness of his arrest and detention. In April 2015 the applicant was eventually released on bail.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s detention, based on the arrest report of 25 March 2015, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Strogan v. Ukraine , no. 30198/11, §§ 85-89, 6 October 2016)?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s detention without a court order, after the initial seventy-two hours of his detention had expired, that is between 12.20 pm and 13.10 pm on 28 March 2015, contrary to domestic law (see Gal v. Ukraine , no. 6759/11, §§ 22-28, 16 April 2015)?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine , no. 2161/02, §§ 102-10, 28 October 2010)?