Communicated on 2 May 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 50933/18 Vadym Anatoliyovych MELNYK against Ukraine lodged on 18 October 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vadym Anatoliyovych Melnyk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and is detained in the Cherkassy pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”). He is represented before the Court by Mr A.S. Shadrin, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background to the case

Since May 2017 the applicant has been held in pre-trial detention on suspicion of organising a kidnapping and murder. While in detention he was diagnosed with stable third-degree stenocardia, cardiac myopathy, second-degree hypertensive disease, the residual effects of the head injury of 2009 in the form of an old fracture of the parietal bone of the right side, with persistent cephalic disorder originating from liquor-dynamic headaches, and light external forehead-vertex hydrocephaly. The applicant underwent a number of examinations and was provided with treatment both within and outside the penal system. The penal authorities acknowledged that it was not possible to implement recommendations given by the doctors in view of the lack of the necessary equipment and the absence of a cardiologist and a neurologist on the staff of the pre-trial detention facility.

Relevant details can be found in case no. 62209/17 (communicated on 10 July 2018).

2. Subsequent developments after communication of case no. 62209/17

In the course of the pre-trial investigation against the applicant the bill of indictment was submitted to the trial court and returned to the prosecutor for corrections a number of times. The applicant ’ s detention was extended by the courts accordingly. The reasons for the applicant ’ s detention were mainly the seriousness of the charges against him, the risk of his absconding, and the risk of unlawful influence on the victim and witnesses. Without providing any further details, the trial court noted that the risks which had been examined previously still existed.

On 16 March 2018, after the bill of indictment had been again submitted to the court for trial, the Talne Court of Cherkassy Region adjourned the hearing since some of the parties to the proceedings had failed to appear. By the same decision the court, referring to the provisions of Article 315 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, maintained the applicant ’ s continued detention without providing any reasons for that decision. According to the above decision, the applicant ’ s detention was authorised until 16 May 2018 that is to say for sixty-two days.

On 15 May 2018 the trial court again adjourned the hearing and extended the applicant ’ s detention for another sixty days.

According to the case-file material, the bill of indictment was subsequently returned to the prosecutor several times for corrections. The applicant ’ s detention was extended accordingly, the most recent time on 25 September 2018. The reasons for the applicant ’ s detention were the same as mentioned above, namely the seriousness of the charges against him, the risk of his absconding and the risk of unlawful influence on the victim and witnesses. On some occasions the trial court based its decision, without providing any further details, on the fact that there still existed a risk of the applicant ’ s absconding and a risk of unlawful influence on the victim and witnesses, which had been previously examined by the court.

The applicant submits that after communication of the application no. 62209/17, he has not been receiving an appropriate medical assistance for his cardiac condition while in detention.

According to the applicant, he has been confined in a metal cage during the court hearings on 17, 30 and 31 May, 1 and 12 June 2017, 18 January, 18 March and 15 May 2018.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2012, notably Article 315 § 3, can be found in the judgment in the case of Chanyev v. Ukraine (no. 46193/13 , § 18, 9 October 2014).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention, reiterating his complaint brought within application no. 62209/17, that he continues receiving inappropriate medical assistance for his diseases while detained. He further complains under the same provision that he has been confined in a metal cage during the court hearings on 17, 30 and 31 May, 1 and 12 June 2017, 18 January, 18 March and 15 May 2018.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the court of 16 March 2018 committing him for trial was unlawful as it lacked any substantiation. He further complains under the same provision that his detention between 16 March and 15 May 2018 on the basis of the court order lasted sixty-one days, which was contrary to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which limited to sixty days the maximum period of detention on the basis of a single court order. Lastly, the applicant complains, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the alleged lack of medical care in detention brought within the application no. 62209/17, was the medical treatment and assistance provided to the applicant in detention since February 2018 onwards in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ confinement in a metal cage during court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02 , § 63, 20 September 2012)?

3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision of the Talne Court of Cherkassy Region of 16 March 2018 maintaining his continued detention on remand without providing relevant reasons and setting a sixty-one-day time-limit on it compatible with the requirements of that Article ( see Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 35-37, 15 December 2016) ?

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