LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
MARTYNCHUK v. UKRAINE and 18 other applications
Doc ref: 69195/17, 1470/18, 10957/18, 18444/18, 27194/18, 27265/18, 49105/18, 50594/18, 50595/18, 50900/18, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-206685
Document date: November 17, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 10
MARTYNCHUK v. UKRAINE and 18 other applications
Doc ref: 69195/17, 1470/18, 10957/18, 18444/18, 27194/18, 27265/18, 49105/18, 50594/18, 50595/18, 50900/18, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-206685
Document date: November 17, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 17 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 69195/17 Stanislav Oleksandrovych MARTYNCHUK against Ukraine and 18 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications principally concern the applicants ’ allegations under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about being arrested without prior court decision in breach of the requirements of domestic law. On various dates (see appendix) the applicants were arrested by law-enforcement authorities in the context of criminal proceedings which had previously been initiated against the applicants during a period ranging from three days to five years prior to their arrest. Relevant arrest records indicated that the applicants had been arrested for the reason of either whilst committing a crime or attempting to commit one, or immediately after a crime has been committed, following the statements of an eyewitness, including the victim, or following an indication of clear signs that the person has just committed a crime, or for all these reasons. Some of the applications, as specified in the appendix, also raise the following issues: the alleged lack of justification of their detention including the determination of the amount of bail, the alleged lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of their detention, the alleged absence of a right to compensation for the applicants ’ unlawful deprivation of liberty, and the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence in the course of pre-trial investigation .
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS
Was the applicants ’ detention, based on the arrest reports on the dates indicated in the appendix, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Strogan v. Ukraine , no. 30198/11, §§ 85-89, 6 October 2016)?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 50594/18 AND 50595/18
Was the alleged delay between the actual arrest of the applicants and the drawing up of the arrest report or creation of other records of their arrest compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 14628/20 AND 20292/20
Was the applicants ’ pre-trial detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07 , §§ 84 et seq. , ECHR 2016 (extracts) and Ignatov v. Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§ 34-37, 15 December 2016) ? In particular, as regards application no. 20292/20, was the amount of bail determined in accordance with the above provision?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 69195/17 , 10957/18 , 18444/18 , 27194/18 , 50594/18, 50595/18, 12830/19 , 18347/19 , 19336/20 , 20292/20 , AND 32225/20
Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02 , §§ 84 ‑ 87, 10 February 2011 )?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 69195/17, 18444/18, 50900/18, AND 52855/19
Did the applicants 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 )?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 52855/19
Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, given the public statements of high-ranking State officials in respect of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see, for example, Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 230 ‑ 32, 4 July 2019 )?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Represented by
Date of commission of crime/institution of criminal proceedings
Date of actual arrest
Additional complaints to be communicated
1
69195/17
06/09/2017
Martynchuk v. Ukraine
Stanislav Oleksandrovych MARTYNCHUK
1988Sumy
Pavlo Mykolayovych SOBYNA
24/07/2016
11/08/2016
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand;
Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, as required by Article 5 § 5
2
1470/18
02/12/2017
Mykytyuk v. Ukraine
Volodymyr Vasylyovych MYKYTYUK
1982Bolekhiv
Iryna Radyslavivna VAN
26/10/2017
09/11/2017
3
10957/18
26/02/2018
Avakov v. Ukraine
Oleksandr Arsenovych AVAKOV
1988Kharkiv
Oleksandr Mykolayovych LYSAK
07/07/2015
31/10/2017
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
4
18444/18
12/04/2018
Trofymenko v. Ukraine
Volodymyr Vsevolodovych TROFYMENKO
1965Kyiv
Nazar Stepanovych KULCHYTSKYY
09/09/2016
16/10/2017
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand;
Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, as required by Article 5 § 5
5
27194/18
06/06/2018
Trukhanov v. Ukraine
Gennadiy Leonidovych TRUKHANOV
1965Odesa
Oleksandr Mykolayovych LYSAK
02/11/2016
14/02/2018
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
6
27265/18
06/06/2018
Ignatchenko v. Ukraine
Nataliya Mykolayivna IGNATCHENKO
1971Romankiv Kyiv region
Oleksandr Mykolayovych LYSAK
31/01/2013
29/01/2018
7
49105/18
01/10/2018
Tkachenko v. Ukraine
Sergiy Oleksandrovych TKACHENKO
1982Kryvyy Rig
Oksana Vadymivna RAGOZINA
26/06/2017
09/08/2018
8
50594/18
27/09/2018
Grebenyuk v. Ukraine
Volodymyr Mykolayovych GREBENYUK
1980Kyiv
Igor Valeriyovych BONDARENKO
23/03/2018
29/03/2018
Unrecorded detention;
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
9
50595/18
27/09/2018
Moskalenko v. Ukraine
Vadym Valeriyovych MOSKALENKO
1993Brovary
Maksym Petrovych BORYSOV
23/03/2018
29/03/2018
Unrecorded detention;
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
10
50900/18
16/10/2018
Selegey v. Ukraine
Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych SELEGEY
1990Khukhra
Pavlo Mykolayovych SOBYNA
19/05/2018
22/05/2018
Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5
11
3999/19
24/12/2018
Tamrazov v. Ukraine
Oleksiy Garriyovych TAMRAZOV
1975Kyiv
Dmytro Igorovych CHASHCHEVYY
31/01/2013
21/08/2018
12
12830/19
21/02/2019
Kolosov v. Ukraine
Volodymyr Fedorovych KOLOSOV
1970Cherkasy
Sergiy Viktorovych VOYCHENKO
19/06/2018
21/12/2018
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
13
18347/19
25/03/2019
Brodskyy v. Ukraine
Yevgen Olegovych BRODSKYY
1984Dnipro
Sergiy Sergiyovych SYROVATKA
31/07/2018
16/12/2018
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
14
52855/19
07/10/2019
Rytikov v. Ukraine
Mykhaylo Sergiyovych RYTIKOV
1987Kryzhanivka
Viktoriia KIRINA
25/01/2019
11/07/2019
Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5;
Breach of the presumption of innocence
15
14628/20
11/03/2020
Grymchak v. Ukraine
Yuriy Mykolayovych GRYMCHAK
1965Kyiv
Tetyana Valeriyivna MATYASH
19/07/2019
14/08/2019
The lack of justification of detention
16
19336/20
24/04/2020
Khmil v. Ukraine
Dmytro Oleksandrovych KHMIL
1980Synyak
Igor Anatoliyovych KORYENKOV
20/02/2014
31/10/2018
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
17
20292/20
12/03/2020
Fedorchuk v. Ukraine
Fedir Fedorovych FEDORCHUK
1971Irpin
Oleksiy Volodymyrovych ZAKHAROV
19/11/2018
17/08/2019
The lack of justification of detention including the determination of the amount of bail;
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
18
23946/20
30/04/2020
Gladkovskyy v v. Ukraine
Oleg Volodymyrovych GLADKOVSKYY
1970Kozyn Kyiv region
Ruslan Anatoliyovych VOLYNETS
24/04/2018
17/10/2019
19
32225/20
21/07/2020
Grytsenko v. Ukraine
Oleksandr Viktorovych GRYTSENKO
1975Kyiv
Denys Sergiyovych DYOMIN
31/01/2013
16/11/2019
Absence of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
