Communicated on 3 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 56387/11 Igor Andriyovych TRAPEZNIKOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Andriyovych Trapeznikov , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1994 and lives in Bilohirsk . He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Ponomaryov , a lawyer practising in Bilohirsk .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 21 April and 17 May 2011 the applicant sold cannabis to R. Those acts were documented by the police and gave rise to criminal proceedings against the applicant for the unlawful sale of narcotic drugs.

At 1 p.m. on 23 May 2011 an investigator with the Bilohirsk Police Department of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea arrested the applicant on suspicion of the unlawful sale of cannabis. The inve stigator relied on Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1961 (“the CCP”) as authorising him to arrest a suspect without a court decision.

The applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a complaint against the arrest with the Bilohirsk Town Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Town Court”). The investigator applied to the Town Court to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention.

Between 2.30 p.m. and 6.50 p.m. on 26 May 2011 the Town Court held a hearing on both actions and decided that the applicant should be placed in custody. It had regard to the gravity of the crime and to the risk that he might abscond and impede the investigation if at liberty. The Town Court further dismissed the complaint by the lawyer that the applicant ’ s arrest was unlawful. It noted that even though the period of preliminary detention (seventy-two hours) had expired at 1 p.m. on 26 May 2011, the applicant had not been in custody while the investigator ’ s request was being considered and that no violation of the applicant ’ s rights could be established during the preliminary detention.

The applicant appealed.

On 16 June 2011 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, having regard to the seriousness of the crime and stating that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond, impede the investigation and reoffend.

On 4 August 2011 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. It decided that the applicant should continue to be held in custody, stating that there were “no grounds to change the preventive measure”.

On 20 September 2011 the Town Court convicted the applicant of the unlawful sale of drugs and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.

On 1 December 2011 and 7 June 2012 the Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of the Town Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of domestic law can be found in Malyk v. Ukraine ( no. 37198/10 , §§ 18-19, 29 January 2015).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that: (a) on 23 May 2011 he was arrested unlawfully; (b) the overall period of his preliminary detention without a court decision exceeded seventy-two hours, in breach of domestic law; and (c) the court decisions concerning his pre-trial detention lacked grounds and did not specify a time-limit for holding him in custody.

2. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he could not claim compensation in respect of the alleged violations of his rights under Article 5.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s arrest and detention between 23 and 26 May 2011 on the basis of the investigator ’ s decision compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? What were the grounds for arresting and detaining the applicant at that time without a court decision? Did the authorities comply with the time-limits for preliminary detention, as provided for by domestic law?

2. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, as ordered by the courts, compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the requirements of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged breaches of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention?