FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 35655/10 Tatyana Nikolayevna REBRAKOVA against Ukraine lodged on 23 June 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tatyana Nikolayevna Rebrakova , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1958 and is presently detained in Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 15 in Simferopol . She is represented before the Court by Mr A. V. Lesovoy , a lawyer practising in Simferopol .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 19 and 25 June 2007 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of fraud and money laundering.

The applicant was placed under an obligation not to leave the town as a preventive measure pending trial.

On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Bakhchysaray Town Court (“the Bakhchysaray Court ”) for trial.

On 24 December 2009 the judge of the Bakhchysaray Court in charge of the case changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant to her detention. This decision was taken at the judge ’ s own initiative and without any applications having been submitted to that effect. The prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, expressed the view that there were no grounds for the applicant ’ s detention. The applicant pointed out that she had never breached the obligation not to leave the town and that she had unfailingly complied with all the summonses. She further noted that she was well-integrated socially in Bakhchysaray , had a family and suffered from some chronic diseases. Referring to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, as well as noting her unemployed status and the absence of any dependants, the judge stated that the only way to ensure her “adequate procedural behaviour” was by means of her detention.

The applicant was detained on the court premises.

She lodged an appeal against the above decision.

However, on 4 January 2010 the Bakhchysaray Court returned her appeal without examination on the grounds that the detention order given by the court at the trial stage was fi nal and not amenable to appeal.

The applicant also unsuccessfully challenged the judge, who had delivered the impugned decision, for his lack of impartiality.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be found in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine , no. 2161/02 , § 60, 2 8 October 2010.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness and arbitrariness of her detention.

She also complains under Article 6 that the judge dealing with her case was biased.

Lastly, she complains, relying on Article 13, that she had no possibility to appeal against the rejection of her motion challenging the judge, as well as the detention order.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?