Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GRIGORYEV v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 32569/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 March 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grigoryev v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 June 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. F. Tkach, a lawyer practising in Sevastopol.
3. Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of judicial review of that detention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicant submitted another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court concerning the excessive length of judicial review of detention (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above).
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the excessive length of judicial review of detention (see appended table);
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O’Leary
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Date of birth |
Period of detention | Length of detention | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 32569/08
25/06/2008 |
Aleksandr Valeryevich Grigoryev
25/06/1983 |
30/11/2004 to 19/09/2005
06/07/2006 to 11/06/2007
14/08/2007 to 18/02/2009 |
9 months and 21 days
11 months and 6 days
1 year, 6 months and 5 days |
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – reclassified complaint under Article 13: domestic courts failed to provide an adequate response to the applicants’ arguments as to the necessity of his release but simply reiterated a standard set of grounds – rulings of 21/12/2006, 11/04/2007, 13/03/2008, 01/09/2008, 25/11/2008 | 5,900 |
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply