Communicated on 10 July 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 1979/11 Dmitriy TIKHONOV against Ukraine lodged on 16 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Tikhonov, is a Belarusian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Borisov.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 4 December 2009 the Belarus police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for having inflicted bodily injuries on a private person.

On 25 December 2009 the applicant left from Belarus to Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, to visit his relatives.

On 19 January 2010 the Belarus police decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention and declared him wanted.

In February 2010 the applicant travelled from Ukraine to Russia.

On 21 March 2010 he was arrested by the Ukrainian police when travelling by train from Russia back to Ukraine. On the same date the Belarus police informed the Ukrainian prosecutors about their intention to seek the applicant ’ s extradition and requested to place him in detention until his extradition.

On 24 March 2010 the Kirovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Kirovskyy Court”), in presence of the prosecutor but not of the applicant, ordered the applicant ’ s detention for forty days, pending the submission of an extradition request by the Belarus authorities.

On 27 April 2010 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office of Ukraine (“the GPOU”) received from its Belurussian counterpart a request for the applicant ’ s extradition and the extension of his detention.

On 30 April 2010 the Kirovskyy Court extended the applicant ’ s detention “pending the resolution of the issue of his extradition”.

On 2 June 2010 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office decided that the request for the applicant ’ s extradition should be granted.

On 17 June 2010 legislative amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure governing the extradition procedure, including the arrest and detention, entered into force.

On 24 June 2010 the applicant ’ s detention was again extended, this time by the Krasnogvardiyskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court”) , “pending the resolution of the issue of his extradition and actual transfer”. The court observed that the extradition arrest, introduced into the Ukrainian legal system in the form of changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure on 17 June 2010, had actually been applied in the applicant ’ s case by the Kirovskyy Court on 30 April 2010. It therefore refused to decide on the question whether the applicant should be placed under the extradition arrest. The court however proceeded to examine the grounds for the applicant ’ s continued detention and noted that the extradition request had been made; that there were no ground for refusing the applicant ’ s extradition; that both Ukrainian and Belarus law envisaged imprisonment for over one year for inflicting bodily injuries and the charges against the applicant were not time-barred; that the applicant did not have refugee status, nor did he enjoy immunity from the prosecution; and that the eighteen-month period for the extradition arrest had not expired. The court further noted that the parties did not indicate any circumstances substantiating the applicant ’ s release.

The applicant did not appeal. He remained in detention until his extradition on 23 July 2010 and did not lodge any requests for release.

Following his extradition, the applicant was tried and, apparently on 15 December 2010, released.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 17 June 2010, are cited in the case of Mokallal v. Ukraine (no. 19246/10 , § 28, 10 November 2011).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his detention from 21 March to 30 April 2010 was contrary to Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. He also complains that the period of his detention from 30 April to 23 July 2010 fell short of the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that there was no adequate judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention and, under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, that he did not have a remedy for the above complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. During the period from 21 March to 23 June 2010, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, did the legislation of Ukraine on detention pending extradition comply with the requirements of the above provision of the Convention?

2. During the above period, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation in respect of the above complaints , as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?