Communicated on 28 January 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 15058/14 Yevgen Mykhaylovych PEDENKO against Ukraine lodged on 31 December 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yevgen Mykhaylovych Pedenko , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kyiv.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 1 August 2013 the applicant, a lawyer, was notified that he was under suspicion of having given a bribe to a judge.

On 29 August 2013 the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv, on an application by an investigating officer of the Kyiv City prosecutor ’ s office, ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention. The court also set bail of 45,880 Ukrainian hryvnias (at the material time around 4,200 euros).

The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed against that decision, stating, inter alia , that the Kyiv City prosecutor ’ s office was situated in the Pecherskyy District of Kyiv and that therefore the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv had no territorial jurisdiction to decide on the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

On 17 September 2013 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 29 August 2013, without examining the argument raised by the applicant ’ s lawyer.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of 2012 provides that an application by an investigating officer for a preventive measure shall be lodged with the court which has jurisdiction over the territory in which the pre-trial investigation was conducted.

The applicant submitted a copy of a decision of 23 January 2013 in which the Kyiv City Court of Appeal had quashed a decision by the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv on a person ’ s pre-trial detention because the application for the preventive measure had been lodged by the Kyiv City prosecutor ’ s office with the latter court instead of the Pecherskyy District Court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the decision on his pre-trial detention was unlawful.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision on his pre-trial detention taken in compliance with domestic law, namely, Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code?