Communicated on 18 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 22194/18 Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK against Ukraine and 3 other application s ( see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants ’ allegations under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about unjustified continued detention after the relevant grounds for that detention ceased to exist. Relevant details of applications are indicated in the appendix.

The applicant in application no. 22194/18 also complains that the Supreme Court, when quashing the applicant ’ s conviction on 9 October 2017 and remitting the case for re-trial, failed to provide reasons for the applicant ’ s detention and did not set a time-limit for that detention which lasted until 23 March 2018, when the trial court ordered the applicant ’ s release. He furthermore complains under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention that he did not have a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention as well as an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS

Were the applicants deprived of their liberty, after the relevant reasons for their detention had ceased to exist, as indicated in the appendix, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine , no. 5425/11, §§ 67-70, 4 June 2015)?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 22194/18

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty from 9 October 2017 to 23 March 2018 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision of the Supreme Court of 9 October 2017 maintaining his continued detention on remand without indicating reasons of that detention and setting a time-limit on it compatible with the requirements of that Article ( see Kondratyev v. Ukraine , no. 5203/09, §§ 109-112, 15 December 2011) ?

2. 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 Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02 , §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011 )?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05, §§ 79-82, 19 January 2012, and Taran v. Ukraine , no. 31898/06 , §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013 )?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Year of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Reason for the applicant ’ s release

Due date of the applicant ’ s release

Date of the applicant ’ s actual release

Other complaints to be communicated

1

22194/18

23/04/2018

Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK

1968Nikopol

Ukrainian

Iryna Anatoliyivna BOYKOVA

Decision of the Desnyans k yi District Court of Kyiv of 23/03/2018 ordering the applicant ’ s release

23/03/2018

03/04/2018

Article 5 § 1 – unlawful detention from 9 October 2017 to 23 March 2018;

Article 5 § 4 – lack of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention;

Article 5 § 5 – absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1, as required by Article 5 § 5

2

40232/19

22/07/2019

Vitaliy Grygorovych DYSHUK

1978Poltava

Ukrainian

Tamila Sergiyivna BESPALA

Decision of the Petrivskyi Local Court of Kirovograd Region of 22/03/2019 recalculating the applicant ’ s prison term

(became final on 15/04/2019)

15/04/2019

22/04/2019

3

14665/20

27/02/2020

Vasyl Mykhaylovych GOYZAN

1994Dubrynychi

Ukrainian

Igor Mykhaylovych SHKORKA

Decision of the Zakarpattyta Court of Appeal taken at 11.35 am of 29/08/2019 quashing the applicant ’ s detention ordered by the lower court

29/08/2019

30/08/2019 at 6.42 pm

4

19068/20

28/02/2020

Petro Petrovych NIKOLAYENKO

1984Gomel

Belarusian

Dmytro Viktorovych YAGUNOV

Decision of the Odessa Court of Appeal of 06/02/2020 ordering the applicant ’ s early release

06/02/2020

07/02/2020 at 6.27 pm