Last Updated on October 5, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MOYSEYETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 49701/12 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Moyseyets 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 14 September 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 lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained principally of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
7. The Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. The Court has also held that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring this person’s appearance at trial. The requirement for the judicial officer to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the detention – in addition to the persistence of reasonable suspicion ‑ applies already at the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand, that is to say “promptly” after the arrest (see, among other authorities, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87 and 102, 5 July 2016).
8. In the leading case of Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4 July 2019), 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ pre-trial detention.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants 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.
IV. 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 (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, § 66, 20 October 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(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 5 October 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 § 3 of the Convention
(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal | Specific defects | 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] |
| 1. | 49701/12
25/07/2012 |
Volodymyr Grygorovych MOYSEYETS
1963 |
|
14/12/2011 – 25/07/2012 | Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv
Rivne City Court |
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | 2,000 | – | |
| 2. | 20866/19
12/04/2019 |
Ruslan Anatolyevich TERNOVSKIY
1976 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg |
12/10/2018-03/10/2019 | Babushkinskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk, Dnipro Court of Appeal | failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the applicant’s appeal of 20/06/2019 against the decision of the Babushkinskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 18/06/2019 to prolong his detention was examined by the Dnipro Court of Appeal on 16/08/2019;
the applicant’s appeal of 07/08/2019 against the decision of the Babushkinskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 05/08/2019 to prolong his detention was examined by the Dnipro Court of Appeal on 11/09/2019; failure of the Babushkinskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk to examine the applicant’s requests of 02/11/2018 and of 08/11/2018 to change the preventive measure applied to him (Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 64-66, 6 November 2008, and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011), Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention – no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art 5-3 (Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015). |
2,600 | 250 |
| 3. | 38624/21
03/08/2021 |
Igor Valentynovych PAVLOVSKYY
1964 |
Kravets Rostyslav Yuriyovych
Kyiv |
12/07/2021 – 05/11/2021 | Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv | use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal of 12/07/2021 examined by the Kyiv Court of Appeal on 28/09/2021
(Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011) |
2,600 | 250 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply