Communicated on 22 February 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 63754/09 Denis Aleksandrovich PIKHUN against Ukraine lodged on 24 November 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Denis Aleksandrovich Pikhun , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Dnipro .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. The applicant ’ s arrest and detention

On 25 September 2006 a criminal investigation for illegal arms possession was instituted in respect of the applicant who was a police officer at the material time.

In the course of the investigation, the applicant was arrested and detained several times upon court orders and then later released (most recently on 13 March 2009).

In November 2009 charges of abuse of power were brought against the applicant.

On 30 November 2009 the applicant was arrested in connection with new charges of firearms theft.

On 3 December 2009 the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk ordered the applicant ’ s arrest.

On 28 January 2010 the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and his defence lawyer and extended the applicant ’ s detention on remand up to 4 months, that is to say until 30 March 2010. The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 4 February 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal returned without examination his appeal against the court decision of 28 January 2010 on the grounds that the criminal case was being heard by the trial court.

On 26 February 2010 in the course of the preparatory hearing of the applicant ’ s criminal case, the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk remitted the case for additional investigation. The court also ordered the applicant ’ s continued detention on remand. No reasons for his continued detention or its time-limits were indicated.

On 12 July 2010 the case file was again transferred to the trial court.

On 4 October 2011 the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk found the applicant guilty of issuing murder threats using firearms, of theft and of the unlawful use of firearms, and sentenced him to four years ’ imprisonment.

On 13 October 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above sentence and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination. The court released the applicant after replacing the preventive measure with an obligation not to abscond.

In the course of the examination of the case by the trial court, the prosecution limited the scope of the charges against the applicant to the charge of firearms theft.

On 22 November 2013 the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk found the applicant guilty of firearms theft but exempted him from any criminal liability due to the expiration of the statutory time-limits.

On 20 February 2014 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above sentence and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination.

According to the available information, the case is being examined by the trial court.

2. The applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment by the police and the ensuing investigation

In the course of the investigation, on 30 November 2009, the applicant came to the prosecutor ’ s office where, after having refused to give testimony, he was allegedly physically assaulted by three police officers.

According to the applicant, the police officers throttled him and then handcuffed him. Shortly afterwards, as he was moved from the premises of the prosecutor ’ s office, the police officers hit his head against a car which was parked nearby. Although he was losing consciousness, the police officers continued throttling him and hitting him on the head.

According to the applicant, upon arrival at the police station on 30 November 2009, the police officers continued ill-treating him. They stubbed a cigarette out on his left hand and demanded that he refrain from asserting his rights and interests within the criminal investigation. The applicant felt sick in his stomach and asked the police to call an ambulance. Later the same day, he was taken to the temporary detention centre, where an ambulance was called for him.

According to the report of the temporary detention centre issued on 22 December 2009, at the time of his admission on 30 November 2009 the applicant was recorded as having a chop wound to the head, burns on his left hand, and bruises on his wrists as a result of being handcuffed.

On 1 and 2 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office about having been ill-treated by police officers on 30 November 2009.

In letters dated 9 February and 3 March 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicant that his ill-treatment complaints had not been forwarded for consideration since the criminal case-file had been transferred to the trial court, which would have to examine these complaints in the course of the trial.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police officers on 30 November 2009 and that the investigation into that event was ineffective.

The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that the trial court extended his detention on 26 February 2010 without indicating either any reason for that detention or any time-limit.

Referring to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that the hearing at the local court on 28 January 2010 aimed at examining the extension of his detention was held in his absence and in the absence of his defence lawyer. He further complains that on 4 February 2010 the court of appeal returned without examination his appeal against the court decision of 28 January 2010 extending his detention on remand.

Lastly, the applicant complains, in substance, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonably long.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment on 30 November 2009 in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Was the investigation in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment on 30 November 2009 in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision of the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 26 February 2010 confirming the applicant ’ s continued detention on remand, without indicating reasons for that detention or its time-limit, compatible with the requirements of the above Article ( see Kondratyev v. Ukraine , no. 5203/09, §§ 109-112 , 15 December 2011) ?

4. Was the procedure by which the applicant ’ s detention was reviewed in January and February 2010 in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05 , §§ 68 ‑ 69, 19 January 2012 and Taran v. Ukraine , no. 31898/06 , § 81, 17 October 2013 )?

5. 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?