Communicated on 2 May 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 13919/12 Olga Vasilyevna TALALIKHINA against Ukraine lodged on 20 February 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Olga Vasilyevna Talalikhina, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Sevastopol. She is represented before the Court by Mr R.Y. Martynovskiy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 5 September 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of theft. On the same date she was questioned as a suspect. As a preventive measure, she signed an undertaking not to abscond. On 30 October 2007 the criminal case was referred to the court for trial.

On 13 April 2009 the applicant had a conflict with her cohabitant at home. As the man sustained serious injuries, he was taken to hospital where he died few days after the incident.

On 17 April 2009 the applicant was arrested and questioned in relation to the incident with her cohabitant.

On 20 April 2009 Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol ordered her pre-trial detention.

On 15 June 2009 the Sevastopol town Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment charging the applicant with inflicting bodily injuries in aggravated circumstances and referred the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On 6 July 2009 the Nakhimovskiy District Court of Sevastopol (“district court”) committed the applicant for trial and ruled that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain the same.

On 20 June 2012 the district court decided to change the custodial preventive measure in respect of the applicant by personal guarantees of her relatives. The applicant was released.

On 19 September 2012 the district court dropped the charge of theft against the applicant for lack of constituent elements of that crime.

On 6 February 2013 the district court convicted the applicant of unintentional homicide and sentenced her to two years ’ imprisonment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that (a) her pre-trial detention after the termination of the investigation in June 2009 had not been based on any court order until 6 July 2009; and (b) the court decision of 6 July 2009 authorising her pre-trial detention was arbitrary.

2. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the overall length of the pre-trial detention was excessive.

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against her was not reasonable. She complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have effective remedies against excessive delays of the domestic proceedings in her case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. With regard to the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in June and July 2009, has the applicant been deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

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

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

4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 6 (regarding length of proceedings), as required by Article 13 of the Convention?