Communicated on 24 August 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 50441/13 Svyatoslav Yuryevich TSYPIN against Ukraine lodged on 22 June 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Svyatoslav Yuryevich Tsypin , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and is detained in Artemivsk .

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

On 15 November 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping, extortion, carjacking, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

On 17 November 2012 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk remanded the applicant in custody "for the period of pre-trial investigation". By way of reasoning the court stated that since not all witnesses of the alleged offences had been identified and interviewed, the applicant could threaten them or collude with them if left at liberty and thus could interfere with the investigation. Noting the applicant ’ s argument that he had an elderly disabled mother, the court stated that the applicant failed to support his allegations in this respect with relevant documents and, in any event, he himself had admitted that he lived with his family separately from his mother.

On 29 November 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the ruling of 17 November 2012.

On 27 December 2012 a police investigator sent the applicant the bill of indictment. The applicant argues that the period of his authorized pre-trial detention expired on that date.

On 12 February 2013 the Artem i vsk Court (the trial court) returned the indictment to the prosecutor for corrections , rejected the applicant ’ s request for release, and extended the applicant ’ s detention to 15 March 2013. By way of reasoning its decision to extend detention the court stated that the applicant was accused of serious offences involving repeated unlawful acts against several victims, which, the court believed, demonstrated that he was likely to continue unlawful activity, evade justice and interfere with proceedings. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed.

O n 14 March 2013 the Court of Appeal , sitting in camera, scheduled a hearing on the applicant ’ s and the prosecutor ’ s appeals and extended the applicant ’ s detention to 15 April 2013 on the ground that the applicant had asked to be present in person at the hearing .

On 21 March 2013 the Court of Appeal held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor, quashed the ruling of the trial court of 12 February 2013 in part concerning the decision to return the indictment to the prosecutor and upheld the decision concerning the applicant ’ s detention.

On 11 April 2013 the trial court extended the applicant ’ s detention to 13 June 2013, stating by way of reasoning that the applicant was accused of several violent offences, that the victims, who lodged civil claims against him totaling UAH 580,631 (about EUR 53,944 at the time), supported the extension of detention, and that no other preventive measure would ensure that the applicant would comply with his obligations as a defendant and would prevent him from influencing the victims and other witnesses.

On 7 June 2013 the trial court extended the applicant ’ s detention to 7 August 2013 stating by way of reasoning that the parties failed to identify any new circumstances not previously examined by the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

On 7 August 2013 the trial court extended the applicant ’ s and his two co-defendants ’ detention by sixty days, stating by way of reasoning that if at liberty they could influence the victims and other witnesses.

On 1 October 2013 the trial court rejected the applicant ’ s and his co-defendants ’ requests for release and extended their detention by sixty days. In rejecting the defendants ’ requests for release the trial court stated that no new circumstances warranting release had been identified.

On 31 October 2013 the trial court extended the applicant ’ s and his co-defendants ’ detention by sixty days stating that the circumstances which had led to the decision to place the defendants in detention pending their trial persisted, in particular that certain evidence against the defendants remained unexamined.

On 25 December 2013 the trial court rejected the applicant ’ s request for release, and extended the applicant ’ s and his con-defendants ’ detention by sixty days to 27 February 2014 on the same grounds as in its decision of 31 October 2013.

On 25 February 2014 the trial court rejected the applicant ’ s request for release stating that no evidence had been provided that the circumstances which led the court to remand the applicant in custody had changed. The court extended the applicant ’ s and his co-defendants ’ detention by sixty days, to 26 April 2014 giving the same reasons as those in its decisions of 31 October and 25 December 2013.

On 23 April 2014 the trial court held a hearing at the detention facility where the applicant was held, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. At the close of the hearing it extended the applicant ’ s and his co-defendants ’ detention for sixty days until 23 June 2014. In rejecting the applicant ’ s petition for release the court stated that the applicant had a permanent address at a shop in Slovyansk, which was the scene of anti-terrorist operations and for this reason any non-custodial preventive measure could not be enforced. The court also stated that there was no evidence that there was a change in the circumstances which led to the initial decision to remand the applicant in custody.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no legal basis for his detention from 27 December 2012 to 12 February 2013 . Under Articles 5 and 13 the applicant also complains that the decisions of the domestic courts to extend his detention were unjustified and insufficiently reasoned , i n taking them the domestic courts failed to consider alternative preventive measures , and that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive. The applicant further complains that on 14 March 2013 the Court of Appeal extended his detention without holding a hearing, in the absence of the applicant and his lawyers.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s detention between 27 December 2012 and 12 February 2013 lawful for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Chanyev v. Ukraine, no. 46193/13 , §§ 29-31, 34, 9 October 2014) ?

2. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention from 12 February 2013 onwards compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, regard being had in particular to the reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicant ’ s continued detention?

3. Was the procedure , which led to the decision of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal of 14 March 2013 to extend the applicant ’ s detention, in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?