Communicated on 3 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 32567/11 Roman Volodymyrovych AKYMENKO against Ukraine lodged on 18 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Roman Volodymyrovych Akymenko , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977. According to the information provided by him in May 2011, he was then being held in detention in the Sumy Pre-Trial Detention Centre. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Sobyna , a lawyer practising in Okhtyrka .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 25 July 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence. His pre-trial detention was extended several times. In particular, on 18 February 2011 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal extended it to nine months (until 25 April 2011).

On 22 April 2011 a judge of the Regional Court of Appeal ordered another such extension, this time to twelve months (that is until 25 July 2011). That ruling was not subject to appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1960, as worded at the material time (it was repealed on 20 November 2012 with the entry into force of a new Code) limited initial pre-trial detention term to two months, but provided for the possibility of an extension of: (1) up to four months – by a judge of the court that originally remanded the person in question in custody as a preventive measure; (2) up to nine months – by a judge of an appellate court; and (3) up to eighteen months – by a judge of the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention from 25 April to 25 July 2011 was unlawful, in particular because it was ordered by an appellate court, which was not authorised to take such a decision under the applicable domestic legislation.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant deprived of his liberty during the period from 25 April until 25 July 2011, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the extension of his detention during that period by a judge of the appellate court in compliance with the applicable domestic legislation?