Published on 26 April 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 34967/17 Roman Oleksiyovych DOVGYY against Ukraine lodged on 5 May 2017 communicated on 8 April 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, and the prejudicial statements made by an anti-corruption prosecutor, in the context of a criminal investigation conducted by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (hereinafter: “NABU”) into suspicion of abuse of office by the officials of the State-owned company E., including the applicant, who was at the relevant time the company’s director for strategy and marketing.

The applicant alleges that he was arrested and remanded in custody in the period between 8 and 10 November 2016 by an investigator in breach of the conditions for such a deprivation of liberty under the relevant domestic law (concerning the risk of absconding) and without a court order. The applicant further alleges that the judicial control of his initial deprivation of liberty was not effective as the relevant investigating judge, although finding that his deprivation of liberty had not been in compliance with the conditions under the relevant domestic law, failed to issue a decision finding his deprivation of liberty unlawful, which consequently prevented him from claiming damages in relation to the unlawful deprivation of liberty. Lastly, the applicant complains that on 26 December 2016 the Head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office published a Facebook post in which he referred to the criminal investigation into the alleged unlawfulness in company E. and stated, inter alia , that “[a]s a result of the investigation, the former deputy director for strategy and marketing, who was one of the members of a criminal conspiracy, was brought to criminal responsibility for [having committed] criminal offence under [the relevant Criminal Code].”

The applicant invokes Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5, and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective remedies for his specific complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5, and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, and, if so, did he properly exhaust those remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty (arrest) in the period between 8 and 10 November 2016 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, as required under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, (1) were the conditions under the relevant domestic law met as regards the deprivation of liberty in question on the grounds of risk of absconding; and (2) were the relevant requirements of the domestic law complied with as regards the existence of a court order for such a deprivation of liberty?

3. Did the procedure for judicial review of the applicant’s initial deprivation of liberty (arrest) comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the investigating judge reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty fail to examine the case properly, as argued by the applicant?

4. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

5. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case as regards the statements made in the Facebook post on 26 December 2016 by the Head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office?