Published on 4 December 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Applications nos. 50474/20 and 50480/20 Pavlo Ivanovych KRYUK against Ukraine and Oleksandr Ivanovych KRYUK against Ukraine lodged on 31 October 2020 communicated on 13 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications principally concern the applicants’ allegations under Article 3 of the Convention that they were held in a glass cabin on 54 occasions during court hearings, at the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Zaporizhzhya from 10 January 2018 to 23 April 2020. According to the applicants, the hearing room was equipped with a glass cabin measuring 3.6 m x 1.2 m x 2.2 m (height). During the court hearings the applicants were held in that cabin along with five other co-accused persons.

The applications furthermore concern the applicants’ allegations about their unjustified placement under house arrest from 23 April to 29 October 2020, about the lack of an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their house arrest and about the lack of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the above alleged violations.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention? Did the national legal framework, as interpreted and applied by national courts, provide an accused person with a possibility to ask to be allowed to sit outside the glass cabin during the court hearing? If so, did the applicants ask so? Also, was there an effective system in place for examining such request and if, if granted, for implementing the decision? The Government are invited to provide relevant examples of domestic case ‑ law on the matter.

2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a glass cabin during the court hearings which were held at the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Zaporizhzhya from 10 January 2018 to 23 April 2020 (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 120-28, 4 October 2016)?

The Government are invited to submit information about the relevant regulatory framework governing the use of glass cabins in court rooms. The Government are also invited to submit information about the technical specifications of the glass cabins installed in the courtroom where the hearings in the applicants’ case took place, in particular as regards the cabin’s size and design, as well as access to light and ventilation.

3. Was the applicants’ placement under 24-hour house arrest free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., ECHR 2016 (extracts) and Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 154-57 and 178-80, 4 July 2019)?

4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their house arrest, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine , no. 2161/02, §§ 102-10, 28 October 2010)?

5. Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 § 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05, §§ 79-82, 19 January 2012, and Taran v. Ukraine , no. 31898/06, §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013)?