Communicated on 29 January 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 63824/10 Igor Leonidovych TSYGANOK against Ukraine lodged on 13 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Leonidovych Tsyganok , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Kyiv.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 February 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of fraud.

In the course of the investigation, he was held in custody and detained several times by the courts, before being released on 6 May 2006.

On 21 June 2006 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv again ordered the applicant ’ s detention. The relevant decision stated that he could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity.

On 7 July 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the decision of 21 June 2006 and released him.

On the same day the investigator rearrested the applicant on additional charges of tax evasion.

On 10 July 2006 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv extended his police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining information on his personality.

On 17 July 2006 it ordered the applicant ’ s detention. The decision stated that he had no permanent place of residence, had been accused of a serious crime, and could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further details of the above-mentioned reasons were provided by the court.

On 24 July 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned decision.

On 17 August 2006 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention to nine months.

On 26 December 2006 the criminal case against him was forwarded to the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv for trial.

On 4 October 2007, in the course of the trial, the applicant lodged a request for release. According to him, the court did not examine that request.

On 16 March 2009 it found the applicant guilty of embezzlement and forgery of documents, and sentenced him to eight years ’ imprisonment.

On 30 June 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the above sentence and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation. By the same decision, it extended the applicant ’ s detention without indicating a time-limit for its duration. The court stated that it had found no reason to change the preventive measure imposed on him, given the seriousness of the charges.

On 21 September 2010, in the course of the pre-trial investigation, the applicant lodged a request for release with the Supreme Court.

On 24 September 2010 it extended his detention until 2 February 2011. According to the applicant, the court did not examine his request of 21 September 2010 .

On 20 January 2011, in the course of the pre-trial investigation, the applicant lodged a request for release with the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters.

On 28 January 2011 the latter court extended his detention until 2 May 2011. According to the applicant, the court did not examine his request of 20 January 2011 .

On 1 August 2013, in the course of the trial, the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv released the applicant on bail.

On 11 March 2014 it found him guilty of fraud and forgery of documents, and sentenced him to eight years and four months ’ imprisonment. He remained at liberty, as he had already fully served the length of his sentence.

On 18 November 2014 the Court of Appeal quashed the above sentence and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation.

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

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic court ’ s decisions of 21 June and 17 July 2006 on his detention were arbitrary and lacked reasoning. He also complains that the court ’ s decision of 10 July 2006 extending his police custody to ten days in order to establish his personality was in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. He further complains under the same provision that the Court of Appeal , when quashing the sentence imposed by the trial court and remitting the case for additional pre-trial investigation on 30 June 2010, failed to provide reasons for its decision to extend his detention and not to set a time-limit for its expiration .

The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was unreasonably long.

Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts ignored the requests for release which he had lodged on 4 October 2007 after the completion of the pre-trial investigation , and on 21 September 2010 and 20 January 2011 in the course of the pre-trial investigation .

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

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s detention between 21 June and 17 August 2006 and his subsequent detention ordered by the courts on 17 August 2006, 30 June and 24 September 2010, and 28 January 2011 free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reas ons for the purposes of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Khayredinov v. Ukraine , no. 38717/04, § § 27-31, 14 October 2010, Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05, §§ 38, 43 and 47-48, 19 January 2012, Barilo v. Ukraine , no. 9607/06, § 93, 16 May 2013, and Kondratyev v. Ukraine , no. 5203/09, §§ 109-112, 15 December 2011)?

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. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts properly examine his requests for release lodged on 4 October 2007, 21 September 2010 and 20 January 2011?

4. 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?