FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SKRYPKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 20390/19 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 July 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Skrypka and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Carlo Ranzoni, President Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. In application no. 55543/19 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

7. The Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany , no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). It is true that the provision in question does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention and for hearing applications for release. Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Fodale v. Italy , no. 70148/01, § 39, ECHR 2006-VII).

8. In the leading case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.

10. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the instant case.

11. In application no. 55543/19 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.

12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention

(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Name of the first-instance court

Date of detention order

Other relevant dates

Appellate court or court examining request for release

Date of decision

Procedural deficiencies

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for

non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

20390/19

28/03/2019

Sergiy Fedorovych SKRYPKA

1979Motruk Mykola Vasylyovych

Kyiv

Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv, 17/10/2018

Date of lodging appeal, 22/10/2018

Kyiv Court of Appeal, 13/02/2019

lack of speediness of review of detention ( Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011)

500

250

55543/19

09/10/2019

Oleksandr Oleksiyovych SYENIN

1971Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych

Dnipro

Leninskyy Local Court of Dnipro, 14/05/2015, 10/07/2015, 18/12/2015, 27/07/2017

failure to address pertinent arguments of the applicant while reviewing detention (Svershov v. Ukraine , no. 35231/02, §§ 70-72, 27 November 2008), lack of reasoning by the court reviewing detention ( Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011)

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy

v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015)

500

250

62836/19

27/11/2019

Viktor Viktorovych VLASYUK

1981Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 25/06/2019

Date of lodging appeal, 26/06/2019

Kyiv Court of Appeal, 03/10/2019

lack of speediness of review of detention ( Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011)

500-

3421/21

21/12/2020

Vladyslav ALLA

1979Kanikayev Yuriy Olegovych

Odesa

Tsentralniy Local Court of Mykolayiv, 24/09/2020

Date of lodging appeal, 06/10/2020

Mykolayiv Court of Appeal, 13/11/2020

lack of speediness of review of detention ( Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011)

500

250[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.