Communicated on 3 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 70878/12 Igor Oleksiyovych RASPRYAKHIN against Ukraine lodged on 24 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Oleksiyovych Raspryakhin , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Kirovograd.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention

On 4 July 2009 the Kirovograd Regional Police Department opened a criminal case against the applicant and another person on suspicion of fraud involving particularly large sums of money.

On the same date the applicant was arrested.

On 7 July 2009 the Leninskyy Dis trict Court of Kirovograd (“the Leninskyy Court”) extended the length of his arrest to ten days because, “in order to decide [whether to apply] pre-trial detention as a preventive measure, it [was] necessary to further clarify the circumstances of the case and to study information regarding the suspect ’ s personality”. The judge noted that the applicant had entirely admitted his own guilt.

On 13 July 2009 a formal charge of fraud involving particularly large sums of money was brought against the applicant.

On unspecified later dates the applicant was further charged with pretending to engage in business activities, the creation of a criminal organisation, money laundering, bribery, and forgery of documents.

The number of those accused during the criminal investigation in question grew to twenty-two persons.

On 14 July 2009 the Leninskyy Court remanded the applicant in pre-trial custody as a preventive measure (for two months, until 4 September 2009). It noted that he had continued to assert his own guilt during that hearing. The judge stated that the seriousness of the charges against the applicant outweighed the fact that he had no criminal record, enjoyed positive character references and was married. The court stated in its ruling that the applicant might try to abscond or hinder the investigation if allowed to remain at liberty.

The domestic courts extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention on five occasions, to eighteen months in total (that is, until 4 January 2011). The grounds for those extensions were the seriousness of the charges and the fact that the investigators still had a lot of work ahead of them.

On 4 December 2010 the pre-trial investigation was declared completed and the applicant was given access to the case file.

Four further extensions of the applicant ’ s detention were made, taking the length of his detention to a total of twenty-eight months (until 4 November 2011) on the ground that additional time was required for the accused to become familiarised with the case file.

On 28 October 2011 the case was sent to the Kirovskyy District Court, Kirovograd (“the Kirovskyy Court”) for trial.

On 13 December 2011 the court remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation on the ground that the right of the applicant (as well as of some of the other accused) to defence had not been respected, since they had not been able to study the case file in the presence of their lawyers. The court decided to maintain their detention as a preventive measure, without giving any further reasoning.

On 22 March 2012 the Regional Court upheld the above ruling.

On 5 April 2012 the actual transfer of the case file from the Kirovskyy Court to the Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office took place.

The applicant ’ s father, acting as his defender, asked the administration of the detention facility why his son continued to be detained. On 16 May 2012 the administration wrote to him that during pre-trial investigations a suspect ’ s detention was ordered for two months unless that term was further extended. Given that the prosecution authorities had only received the file for the additional investigation on 5 April 2012, there were legitimate grounds for the applicant being detained until 5 June 2012.

On 1 June 2012 the Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention to thirty-two months on the ground that the investigation had been extended and that there were no reasons for changing the earlier chosen preventive measure. According to the court ’ s calculations, that new extension was to last until 5 August 2012. The ruling stated that the period of the applicant ’ s detention from 4 November 2011 (the expiry date of the earlier extension) until 5 April 2012 (the date on which the prosecutor had received the case file for the additional investigation) was not to be taken into account for the purposes of the court ’ s calculations.

On 3 August 2012 the investigation was completed and the case was sent for trial to the Kirovskyy Court, which held a preliminary hearing on 3 September 2012. It decided to transfer the case to the Leninskyy Court. By the same ruling, it maintained the preventive measures in respect of the accused.

On 31 October 2012 the Leninskyy Court remitted the case for additional investigation. By the same ruling, the court kept in place the preventive measures in respect of the accused.

On 10 April 2013 the Regional Court quashed the above decision and remitted the case to the Leninskyy Court.

It appears that the case was subsequently transferred to the Kirovograd Town Court.

On 3 June, 10 July, 9 October 2013 and 26 March 2014 the Kirovograd Court rejected the applicant ’ s requests to be released on the ground that the same request filed by the applicant on previous occasions had already been examined and refused and there were no reasons for changing the preventive measure in his respect.

However, on 10 October 2014 the Kirovograd Court granted his request for release, citing the length of his pre-trial detention (over five years), his disability (no further details are known in this regard), the absence of any criminal record, and the fact that he had a minor child and elderly parents to care for. The court referred to the Court ’ s case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

2. Conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the Kirovograd SIZO

During the entire period of his detention the applicant was held in the Kirovograd SIZO. He describes the conditions of his detention as follows.

The applicant was detained in four different cells – each measuring about eight square metres and shared by between four and six people. On two occasions, in May 2012 and October 2014 – each time for about two weeks – he was held in a cell measuring about twenty square metres and shared by between ten and twelve inmates.

There was no hot water supply in the SIZO, and cold water was supplied only for short periods. The cell lacked any natural lighting, as its only window was covered by three rows of metal bars.

The applicant had a daily outdoor walk for thirty minutes. He had access to a shower once a week.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012 can be found in the Court ’ s judgment on the case of Chanyev v. Ukraine (no. 46193/13 , §§ 17 and 18, 9 October 2014).

The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (which remained in effect until 20 November 2012) are quoted in the case of Lutsenko v. Ukraine ( no. 2) ( no. 29334/11 , § 100, 11 June 2015).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of his detention in the SIZO.

Furthermore, relying on Articles 5 and 6, he complains that his pre-trial detention was unlawful and unreasonably long.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the Kirovograd SIZO comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial?