Communicated on 28 August 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 881/13 Sergey Vladimirovich GOLOVANOV against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications principally concern the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants ’ detention awaiting the determination of the criminal charges brought against them. Some of the applications also concern the allegedly unjustified bail condition, the allegedly unreasonable duration of the applicants ’ detention, the alleged lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of their detention, and the alleged absence of a right to compensation in that regard.

In particular, the alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and/or 5 of the Convention took place during the following periods:

In so far as application no. 881/13, lodged on 19 December 2012 by Mr Sergey Vladimirovich Golovanov , a Russian national, is concerned: between 29 May 2009 and 27 April 2015.

In so far as application no. 64627/13, lodged on 7 October 2013 by Mr Fedor Vasilyevich Oksanich , a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 13 March and 2 September 2013.

In so far as application no. 21702/14, lodged on 3 March 2014 by Mr Volodymyr Yevgenovych Kadushkevych , a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 18 and 23 September 2013.

In so far as applications nos. 42209/15 and 42237/15, lodged on 21 August 2015, respectively, by Mr Oleg Mykolayovych Bilyk and by Mr Vyacheslav Stepanovych Shovkalyuk , Ukrainian nationals, are concerned: between 1 April 2014 and 2 March 2015.

In so far as application no. 27331/16, lodged on 28 April 2016 by Mr Valentyn Tsezarovych Zhyzitskyy , a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 9 November 2015 and 3 February 2016.

In so far as application no. 11356/17, lodged on 17 March 2016 by Mr Ivan Ivanovych Bilyy , a Ukrainian national, is concerned: between 17 March 2014 and 17 March 2016.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards all the applications

Was the applicants ’ detention during the respective periods as specified above in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to address the applicants ’ specific complaints under that provision as set out in their applications, including the applicants ’ arguments that their detention was not in accordance with the domestic law and/or that the decisions authorising their detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons (all the applications, except no. 27331/16), and/or that their detention was not covered by any decision at all (applications nos. 42209/15, 42237/15 and 27331/16).

ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards applications nos. 881/13, 64627/13, 42209/15, 42237/15 and 11356/17

Was the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention during the respective periods as specified above in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application

no. 64627/13

Was there a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, having regard to the applicant ’ s complaint that the Kyiv Court of Appeal failed to assess his ability to comply with the bail condition, as set out in its decision of 8 April 2013?

ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application

no. 21702/14

Was there a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, having regard to the applicant ’ s complaint that he was not given sufficient time and facilities to study the case-file during the hearing of 19 September 2013 concerning the lawfulness of his arrest?

ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards applications nos. 64627/13, 42209/15, 42237/15 AND 11356/17

Was the procedure by which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their detention during the respective periods mentioned above in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, having regard to the applicants ’ complaints that the review of the lawfulness of their detention was neither thorough nor speedy?

ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application

no. 11356/17

Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand during his trial, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards applicationS noS. 64627/13 and 11356/17

Assuming that their pre-trial detention was in violation of paragraphs 1, 3 and/or 4 of Article 5, did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

881/13

19/12/2012

Sergey Vladimirovich GOLOVANOV

02/01/1968

Kyiv

Lyudmila Mikhaylovna KICHUZHINETS

64627/13

07/10/2013

Fedor Vasilyevich OKSANICH

11/06/1956

Kyiv

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

21702/14

03/03/2014

Volodymyr Yevgenovych KADUSHKEVYCH

22/03/1967

Kyiv

Taras Volodymyrovych SENIV

42209/15

21/08/2015

Oleg Mykolayovych BILYK

27/03/1981

Kyiv

Oleg Viktorovych GURICH

42237/15

21/08/2015

Vyacheslav Stepanovych SHOVKALYUK

24/08/1961

Kyiv

Oleg Viktorovych GURICH

27331/16

28/04/2016

Valentyn Tsezarovych ZHYZITSKYY

28/06/1971

Gorodok

Maya Stepanivna CHUKHAS

11356/17

17/03/2016

Ivan Ivanovych BILYY

23/09/1984

Pidgorodne

Oleksandr Anatoliyovych IGNATOV