Communicated on 2 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40583/15 Oleksandr Anatoliyovych IGNATOV against Ukraine lodged on 25 July 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Ignatov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1989 and lives in Nyzhni Sirogozy .

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

On 31 May 2013 the Solonyansky District Police Department in the Dnipropetrovsk region instituted criminal proceedings in respect of a carjacking.

On 4 June 2013 the applicant was arrested by the police as a suspect of the above crime.

On 5 June 2013 the investigating judge of the Solonyansky District Court remanded the applicant in pre-trial custody until 4 August 2013 on the grounds that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious crime, did not work, had no funds, did not reside in the area, did not reside in his official place of residence either, and might evade his procedural obligations and abscond to avoid investigation and trial.

On 19 June 2013 the applicant was charged with robbery of Mr G. committed together with Mr V.

On 21 June 2013 the pre-trial investigation ended and the case against the applicant and Mr V. was referred to the Solonyansky District Court. The case was then transferred to the Krasnogvardiysk District Court, Dnipropetrovsk (the District Court).

On 2 August 2013 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation and remanded the applicant in custody until 1 October 2013. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime and might continue his unlawful behaviour.

On 1 October 2013 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the applicant ’ s case and extended the applicant ’ s detention until 29 November 2013. It noted that it would not be justifiable to replace the applicant ’ s detention with a less severe preventive measure.

On 26 November 2013 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 24 January 2014. The court noted that the applicant and Mr V. were accused of serious crimes, did not reside in the region, did not work, and might influence witnesses and other participants in the proceedings or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings, given that the trial had not yet started.

On 27 December 2013 the applicant lodged an application for release with the District Court, complaining among other things about his deteriorating state of health.

On 21 January 2014 the District Court examined the applicant ’ s request of 27 December 2013 and rejected it. The court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 21 March 2014 on the same grounds as in its previous decision of 26 November 2013. As to the applicant ’ s health problems, the court noted that the applicant had been treated successfully for renal colic and was fit for trial.

On 19 March the District Court rejected the applicant ’ s application for release of 26 February 2014 and extended the applicant ’ s detention until 19 May 2014 on the same grounds as on two previous occasions, adding that the applicant was aware of the punishment under the law for the crime he was accused of and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability.

On 22 April, 17 June, and 15 July 2014 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention respectively until 20 June, 15 August, and 12 September 2014, on the same grounds as in its decisions of 26 November 2013 and 21 January 2014.

On 15 August 2014 the applicant lodged an application for release with the District Court.

On 4 September 2014 the District Court examined the applicant ’ s application for release of 15 August 2014 and rejected it. The court further extended the applicant ’ s detention until 2 November 2014. It repeated its previous reasoning, including that the applicant was aware of the punishment under the law for the crime he was accused of and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability. It also added that the applicant and his co-accused Mr V. had no strong social ties.

On 30 September 2014 the applicant lodged another application for release, which was rejected on 9 October 2014. In its decision the District Court repeated the previous reasoning and noted in addition as grounds for the applicant ’ s detention that the applicant was not studying.

On 31 October 2014 the District Court rejected the applicant ’ s application for release of 24 October 2014 and further extended the applicant ’ s detention until 29 December 2014. It advanced reasons similar to those given on 4 September 2014.

On 9 December 2014 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 6 February 2015. It repeated the reasoning of its previous decisions.

On 27 January 2015 the applicant and Mr V. were convicted by the Krasnogvardiysk District Court of robbery and carjacking and sentenced to five years ’ imprisonment. The court further decided to reduce the remainder of the prison sentence (i.e. the part not covered by the pre-trial detention) by half under the amnesty law.

On 12 June 2015 the Mensky District Court, Chernigiv Region, allowed his application for early release.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that on 1 October 2013 the court, deciding on the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, did not advance any proper reasons, and that the domestic legislation did not require the domestic courts to advance any such reasons or to set time-limits. Referring to Article 5 § 3 the applicant complains that between 2 August 2013 and 27 January 2015 (that is one year and almost six months) his detention was extended by the Krasnogvardiysk District Court on the same grounds. He also complains that his application for release submitted to the local court on 27 December 2013 was examined only on 21 January 2014, and his similar request lodged on 15 August 2014 was examined only on 4 September 2014, which did not comply with the requirements of speediness of review under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

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

3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of the proceedings upon his applications for release of 27 December 2013 and 15 August 2014 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

4. Do the above issues stem from legislative lacunae and other shortcomings in the domestic legal system (see, mutatis mutandis , Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02 , § § 98-101, 10 February 2011 and Chanyev v. Ukraine , no. 46193/13 , § 34, 9 October 2014) and thus constitute a systemic problem incompatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 110, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and László Magyar v. Hungary , no. 73593/10 , §§ 46-53, 20 May 2014, with further references )?