Last Updated on December 14, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.
European Court of Human Rights
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KRAVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 52292/16 and 3 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kravchenko and others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Mārtiņš Mits, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no. 34270/22, the applicant 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 that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
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. In application no. 34270/22, the applicant submitted complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. 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 it also discloses violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the well-established case-law set out in the appended table.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), 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 excessive length of pre-trial 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 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits
Acting Deputy Registrar President
________________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Length of detention | Specific defects | House arrest | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[ii] |
| 1. | 52292/16
26/08/2016 |
Nataliya Volodymyrivna KRAVCHENKO
1971 |
Ogorilko
Yuriy Volodymyrovych Chervonograd |
23/01/2015 to
05/04/2019 |
4 years and
2 months and 14 days |
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
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 |
– | 2,600 | 250 | |
| 2. | 34270/22
30/06/2022 |
Viktor Viktorovych SPIVAK
1989 |
Voronyuk
Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne |
25/10/2018 to
18/04/2022 |
3 years and
5 months and 25 days |
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; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial |
between 31/12/2021 and 18/04/2022 – 24/7 house arrest | Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – from 25/10/2018 to 30/06/2022, 1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine,
no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021); Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings. |
2,800 | 250 |
| 3. | 54055/22
07/11/2022 |
Igor Anatoliyovych KUNYK
1971 |
Vasylyshyn
Maksym Romanovych Kremenchuk |
10/02/2022
pending |
More than
1 year and 8 months and 29 days |
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts |
1,100 | 250 | ||
| 4. | 10568/23
09/02/2023 |
Yevgen Oleksandrovych KOVALENKO
1990 |
|
21/04/2021
pending |
More than
2 years and 6 months and 18 days |
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand |
1,600 | – |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[ii] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply