Communicated on 7 January 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 64603/12 Igor Alekseyevich KIRILLOV against Ukraine lodged on 29 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Alekseyevich Kirillov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Feodosiya .

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

On 9 August 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, a customs official at the material time, in respect of a corruption ‑ related offence (“the first criminal case”).

On 10 August 2004 the applicant was arrested and subsequently remanded in custody in connection with those proceedings.

On various subsequent dates the applicant, together with some of his colleagues, was charged with having created a coordinated corrupt scheme for customs clearance transactions and having effected a number of transactions under this scheme.

On 8 November 2007 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court in Zaporizhzhia convicted the applicant and his co-defendants of some of the offences with which they had been charged, and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. The applicant, in particular, was sentenced to nine years and six months ’ imprisonment, the term of imprisonment to run from the day of his arrest (10 August 2004).

On 23 November 2007 a second criminal case was instituted against the applicant and some of his colleagues, as new charges relating to corrupt dealings had been identified.

On 23 June 2008 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal reviewed the first criminal case on appeal and modi fied the judgment of 8 November 2007, in particular, by reducing the applicant ’ s sentence to five years ’ imprisonment.

On 7 August 2008, while the applicant was still serving the sentence imposed on him in connection with the first criminal case, the Zhovtnevyy District Court in Zaporizhzhia ordered his concurrent detention on remand for two months in connection with the investigation of the second criminal case. The court noted that the necessity of that measure was warranted by the gravity of the new criminal offences with which the applicant had been charged, and the necessity to prevent him from absconding or obstructing the relevant investigation. On several subsequent occasions the judicial authorities extended that order for further consecutive periods, the last decision having been taken by the Supre me Court of Ukraine on 29 April 2009, extending the applicant ’ s det ention on remand until 7 August 2009.

On 10 August 2009 the applicant was formally released from detention, his prison term imposed in connection with the first criminal case having ended, and was immediately arrested in connection with the second criminal case pending the examination of the prosecution ’ s request for an extension of his detention on remand.

On 11 August 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine took a decision to extend the applicant ’ s detention on remand – ordered on 7 August 2008 – until 7 December 2009, pending the investigation in the second criminal case.

On 22 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, having reviewed in cassation proceedings the judgment of the appellate court given in respect of the first criminal case, quashed it and remitted the case for a new appellate review.

On 3 November 2009 the applicant and his co-defendants in the second criminal case were informed that the relevant investigation had been completed, and they were provided with the relevant case-file in order to familiarise themselves with the material before the trial.

On 26 November 2009, 4 Febru ary and 29 March 2010 the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention on remand – ordered in connection with the second criminal case – until 7 February, 31 March and 31 May 2010 respectively, pending the applicant and his co-defendants familiarising themselves with the case-file material. By way of reasoning, the court referred to the gravity of the crimes with which the applicant had been charged and the need to prevent him from absconding or obstructing “the truth in the case from being established”.

The time for the last period of detention which had been o rdered having expired on 31 May 2010, the applicant was subsequently detained in the absence of any order for his detention.

In the meantime, on 19 April 2010 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal qua shed the judgment of 8 November 2007 given in respect of the first criminal case, and remitted that case to the Feodosiya Court for a fresh trial. Subsequently, the two criminal cases against the applicant were joined.

On 12 August 2010 the Feodosiya Court held a preliminary hearing and decided that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant pending trial.

On 27 April 2012 the applicant was convicted of several corruption ‑ related offences and sentenced to seven years and nine months ’ imprisonment, the term of imprisonment to run from the date of his initial arrest (10 August 2004).

On 10 May 2012 the applicant was released from prison, as his term of imprisonment had ended.

On 5 July 2012 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea upheld the judgment of 27 April 2012 on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he was deprived of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the following periods:

(a) from 10 to 11 August 2009 and from 31 May to 12 Augus t 2010, as during these periods there was no formal decision justifying his detention; and

(b) from 12 August 2010 to 27 April 2012 when he was detained on the basis of a court order which did not cite any grounds for his detention and did not specify the period of such detention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention from 10 to 11 August 2009, a nd from 31 May 2010 to 27 April 2012? In particular:

(a) What was the legal basis for his detention from 10 to 11 August 2009 and from 31 May to 12 August 2010?

(b) Was the decision of 12 August 2010 ordering the applicant ’ s detention pending trial compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1(c) (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02 , §§ 71-76 and 98, 10 February 2011)?