Communicated on 4 June 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 70840/10 Jan Michal STASZUK against Ukraine lodged on 13 November 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jan Michal Staszuk , is a Polish national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Warsaw . He is represented before the Court by Mr S.V. Zakharov , a lawyer practising in Kyiv .

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

On 14 May 2010 the applicant was arrested in Kyiv on suspicion of unlawfully using equipment for covert surveillance of telephone networks.

An investigator of the Security Service of Ukraine (“the SBU”) lodged a request with the Shevchenkivsky y District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) seeking that the applicant be remanded in custody pending the investigation. He submitted that the applicant ’ s detention was necessary to prevent him from absconding and interfering with the investigation, given that the applicant was a foreign national, did not have a permanent place of residence in Ukraine and was suspected of a serious offence. The applicant objected , seeking release on bail.

On 17 May 2010 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody and ordered that he be placed in a n SBU detention facility. It held that the arguments submitted by the investigator were sufficient to conclude that the applicant had to be detained.

On 19 and 20 May 2010 the applicant ’ s lawyers appealed.

On 21 May 2010 the investigator charged the applicant with unlawful acquisition and use of covert surveillance equipment. The charge was based on the accusation that the applicant, acting in conspiracy with Mr M . , a Russian national, unlawfully brought into Ukraine for subsequent sale certain equipment for covert surveillance of mobile telephone networks and used it to intercept private telephone conversations of several individuals.

By her letter dated 25 May 2010 J udge S. of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) informed the applicant , through the director of the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre No. 13 (“the Kyiv SIZO”) , and the applicant ’ s lawyer that on 27 May 2010 the Court of Appeal would consider the appeals against the detention order of 17 May 2010. According to the applicant, this letter was dispatched by post on 31 May 2010 to the Kyiv SIZO while at that time the applicant was held not at the Kyiv SIZO but at the SBU detention facility .

According to the applicant, on 27 May 2010 t he Court of Appeal upheld the District Court ’ s order of 17 May 2010.

On 13 July 2010 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 14 September 2010. It noted that there were no reasons to release the applicant and the investigative authority needed time to complete the investigation. On 16 July 2010 the applicant appealed against this order.

By his letter dated 21 July 2010 J udge K. of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant and the applicant ’ s lawyer that on 26 July 2010 the Court of Appeal would examine the appeal against the order of the District Court of 13 July 2010. According to the applicant, this letter was dispatched by post on 30 July 2010 to the Kyiv SIZO while he was still being held at the SBU detention facility .

According to the applicant, on 26 July 2010 t he Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court of 13 July 2010.

By her letter dated 7 September 2010 Judge V. of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant, through the director of the SBU detention facility, that on 9 September 2010 the Court of Appeal would consider the investigative authority ’ s request for extension of the applicant ’ s detention. According to the applicant, this letter was received by the SBU detention facility on 14 September 2010 .

On 9 September 2010 the Court of Appeal granted the investigative authority ’ s request and extended the applicant ’ s detention until 14 November 2010. The court noted that charges against the applicant were serious, that there were no reasons to release him and that the investigative authority needed more time to complete the investigation.

On 1 November 2010 the investigator charged the applicant with several additional offences in connection with the same events.

On 21 November 2010 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention until 13 December 2010.

At an unspecified date the applicant ’ s case was sent to the District Court for trial.

On 27 April 2011 the District Court committed the applicant for trial, rejected the applicant ’ s request for release and ordered his continuing detention pending trial. The court stated that the applicant was charged with a serious offence, was a foreign national and had no permanent place of residence in Ukraine. No time-limit for detention was fixed.

On 14 October , 24 November 2011, and 11 January 2012 the District Court rejected the applicant ’ s requests for release. It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of 27 April 2011.

On 25 August 2011 the District Court rejected a request from the applicant ’ s lawyer in which he asked that the District Court either release the applicant or set an end date for his detention and specify on which basis he was being detained . The District Court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious off en ce, was a foreign national and had no permanent place of residence in Ukraine and there was no reason to set the end date for his detention since his detention was needed to complete the trial.

On 19 March 2012 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged, sentencing him to four years ’ imprisonment .

On 7 December 2012 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and remitted the case for additional investigation. It held in particular that the charges against the applicant were not sufficiently specific and that certain documents were lacking in the case file. It ordered the applicant ’ s continuing detention without giving any reasons .

On 15 January 2013 the District Court set bail for the applicant.

On 16 January 2013 the applicant was released on bail.

On 17 May 2013 the District Court approved the applicant ’ s plea bargain, convicted him, and sentenced him to two years and eight months ’ imprisonment which was to be considered fully served in view of the period spent by the applicant in pre-trial detention.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 14 December 2010 and 27 April 2011 and between 27 April 2011 and 19 March 2012 was not lawful .

The applicant next complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention pending investigation and trial was unreasonably long.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he and his lawyer had not been duly informed about the hearings of the Court of Appeal which took place on 27 May , 26 July 2010 and 9 September 2010 and at which the Court of Appeal decided matters related to the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s detention lawful for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02 , § 98, 10 February 2011 ) during the following periods:

- from 14 December 2010 to 27 April 2011 and

- from 27 April 2011 to 19 March 2012?

2 . Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention pending investigation and trial against him in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, w ere the reasons given by the domestic court s for the applicant ’ s continued detention sufficient to justify the length of the detention in question?

3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant and his lawyer duly informed about the hearings of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal held on 27 May , 26 July and 9 September 2010 ?

The Government are requested to submit copies of decisions of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal of 27 May and 26 July 2010 .