Communicated on 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 31302/14 Yevgen Mykolayovych BAKULIN against Ukraine lodged on 11 April 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

At the time of the events the applicant was the Chairman of the board of the NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” ( the leading enterprise in Ukraine ’ s fuel and energy complex, one of the biggest Ukrainian companies ).

The case concerns:

(a) the applicant ’ s arrest without a court decision on 21 March 2014 on suspicion of appropriation of funds in a particularly large amount committed in 2012;

(b) conditions of his detention in the court room during the hearing before the Kyiv Pecherskyy District Court which lasted from about 9 p.m. on 22 March 2014 until 4.30 a.m. on 23 March 2014 and during which the applicant was allegedly held in a cage, without food and water and without access to toilet;

(c) the applicant ’ s alleged inability to confer in private with his lawyers during the hearing before the Kyiv City Court of Appeal on 28 March 2014, when his appeal against placing him in pre-trial detention as a preventive measure was examined; while the lawyers were present in the court room, the applicant ’ s participation was organised through videoconferencing;

(d) allegedly poor conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (the applicant was placed in that detention facility on 24 March 2014; as known from public sources, he was released on bail on 25 April 2014).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention during the hearing before the Kyiv Pecherskyy District Court amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention ?

2. Did the material conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention ?

3. Did the applicant ’ s arrest on 21 M arch 2014 comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?

4. Did the hearing before the Kyiv City Court of Appeal on 28 March 2014 comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?