Communicated on 19 May 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 68596/11 Aleksandr Vsevolodovich GNEZDOV against Ukraine lodged on 26 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vsevolodovich Gnezdov , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Simferopol. During the events described below he suffered from asthma.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention

On an unspecified date the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for bribery.

On 24 February 2011 the police detained the applicant.

On 26 February 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol, relying on Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered his pre-trial detention until Saturday, 24 April 2011. The court stated without elaborating further or referring to concrete facts, that if at liberty the applicant could abscond, hinder investigation or pursue his criminal activities.

On 10 March 2011 the Crimea Court of A ppeal upheld the decision of 26 February 2011.

On 21 April 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court rejected the prosecutors ’ request to prolong the applicant ’ s detention after 24 April 2011.

The applicant was released from the pre-trial detention centre on Monday, 26 April 2011.

The applicant complained to the prosecutors, referring to the decision of 26 February 2011 and Article 156 of the Code, that his detention could not last longer than two months, thus he should have been released on 24 April 2011 and that his ensuing detention had no legal basis. The prosecutors replied by a letter acknowledging that the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention ended on 24 April 2011. They argued, however, that as 24 and 25 April 2011 were non-working days the applicant was released only on 26 April 2011 pursuant to Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

During the first two weeks of his detention the applicant was kept in the Simferopol ITT. He was not allowed to have daily walks or shower.

Afterwards the applicant was transferred to the cell no. 40 of the Simferopol SIZO. The window in the cell was not glazed and there was no heating.

Both in the SIZO and the ITT the applicant was kept in the cells where detainees smoked and electric lightning was constantly on. The applicant did not have access to all the medications which he needed in connection with his asthma.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the calculation of terms, provides that if the last day falls on a non-working day, the following first working day is considered as the last day of the term concerned.

Under Article 156 of this Code, pre-trial detention during pre-trial investigation shall not last more than two months. If the term of pre-trial detention expired and if it was not extended in accordance with the procedure envisaged by the Code, the body of inquiry, investigator, or prosecutor shall immediately release the person from detention.

Articles 156 further stipulates that Governors of pre-trial detention facilities shall immediately release from detention any accused in whose respect no court resolution extending the term of pre-trial detention has been received on the day of expiry of the terms of pre-trial detention.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the conditions of his detention fell short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and were incompatible with his state of health. He complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no justification to place him in detention. The applicant further complains under the same provision that his detention after 24 April 2011 was unlawful.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. H as there been a breach of Article 3 of the C onvention on account of the applicant ’ s material conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance during his detention in the ITT and the Simferopol SIZO?

2. Was the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?

3. Were the legislative provisions governing the applicant ’ s detention sufficiently clear and was their application in the present case free from arbitrariness? Was there a general practice of releasing detainees from pre-trial detention facilities only on working days?