Published on 15 May 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27003/16 Mykhaylo Viktorovych MESHCHERYAKOV against Ukraine lodged on 6 May 2016 communicated on 26 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns various aspects of criminal proceedings against the applicant (Articles 6, 8, 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

Criminal proceedings against the applicant for illegal entrepreneurship and aiding and abetting the misappropriation of funds were pending from 2008 to 12 October 2018 when they were terminated as time barred.

From 7 December 2008 to 17 July 2012 the applicant was in pre-trial detention. After his release, the applicant was subject to an obligation not to abscond from 17 July 2012 to 14 February 2017. On several occasions he asked the authorities for a permission to visit his relatives in the Lugansk Region and in the Russian Federation, but the requests were either left unexamined or refused. The authorities in particular refused his request to attend a memorial meal after the death of this grandmother in 2016.

On 12 October 2018, when the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated, the applicant obtained access to the case file, and learned that from 14 December 2007 to 15 November 2008 his telephone had been secretly wiretapped. In 2018 he requested the Kyiv Court of Appeal to provide copies of the decisions on which the tapping was based. His request was refused because the relevant documents were destroyed.

The applicant submitted the following complaints:

- under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings;

- under Article 8 that he could not see his family during the period when he was under obligation not to abscond;

- under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that he was not able to travel freely within the country and abroad from 17 July 2012 to 14 February 2017;

- under Article 8 that the wiretapping of his telephone was unlawful;

- under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have a domestic remedy against the length of the criminal proceedings and the refusals to grant his requests to leave his place of residence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the fact that the applicant could not see his family nor attend a memorial meal an interference with his right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4? Was any restriction placed on his freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4?

4. In so far as the wiretapping is concerned, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?