FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 49900/11 Sergiy Sergiyovych PANKRATYEV against Ukraine lodged on 3 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergiy Sergiyovych Pankratyev , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Kyiv . He is represented before the Court by Mr O.V. Zarutskyy , a lawyer practising in Kyiv .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 October 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery in aggravated circumstances. On the same day he was charged with that crime.

On 16 October 2009 the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Darnytskyy Court”) ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for two months.

On 10 November 2009 the applicant was also charged with murder.

On 10 December 2009 the Darnytskyy Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention to three months, namely to 15 January 2010.

On 13 January 2010 the Darnytskyy Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention to four months, namely to 15 February 2010.

On 13 February 2010 the case was referred to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for consideration on the merits.

On 15 March 2010 the Kyiv Court of Appeal held a preliminary hearing in the case and ordered, inter alia , that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be left unchanged.

On 14 April 2011 the Kyiv Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of robbery and murder. It convicted him to fourteen years ’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his property.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. No further information has been provided.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of 1960 can be found in the judgment in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine , ( no. 2161/02, § §56- 5 9 , 28 October 2010 ).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his pre-trial detention after 15 February 2010 till 14 April 2011 was not compatible with Article 5 § 1 ( с ) of the Convention.

2. The applicant complains that after the completion of the pre-trial investigation, he did not have at his disposal an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He invokes Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applciant ’ s detention after 15 February 2010 till 14 April 2011 compatible with Article 5 § 1 ( с ) of the Convention ?

The Government are invited to provide copies of all the court decisions dealing with the issues of the applicant ’ s detention in that period .

2. With respect to the period which commenced after the completion of the pre-trial investigation, d id 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?