Last Updated on April 30, 2019 by LawEuro
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LEVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 46993/13 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 April 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Levchenkoand Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
MārtiņšMits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2019,
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. Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
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.The 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 that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They 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 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. The applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 as well as Article 6 of 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 Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above, § 86), Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004) and, mutatis mutandis, Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, §§ 71-73, 27 November 2008).
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, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declaresthe 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 Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 as well as Article 6 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under 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 11 April 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
LivTigerstedt Síofra O’Leary
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
Date of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | 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] |
| 1. | 46993/13
12/07/2013 |
Oleksandr Viktorovych Levchenko
18/06/1979 |
|
13/08/2009 to
24/10/2011
23/02/2012 to 17/03/2014 |
2 years, 2 months and 12 days
2 years and 23 days
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention: lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention (reiterated reasoning in standard terms);
Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings: 19/08/2009 – pending 2 levels of jurisdiction
|
5,900 |
| 2. | 47719/15
16/09/2015 |
Denys Valentynovych Selivanov
21/01/1981 |
Andriy Anatoliyovych Kristenko
Kharkiv |
03/02/2012 to
19/10/2012
29/10/2013 to 24/06/2015 |
8 months and 17 days
1 year, 7 months and 27 days
|
Art. 5 (1) (c) – unlawful pre-trial detention:
(1) detention without a court order – on 19/10/2012 a court of appeal having quashed the judgment of the first-instance court made no ruling on the applicant’s further detention and no such decision was made until 12 December 2014; (2) decisions of 12/12/2014 and 17/03/2015 on the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention contained no reasoning and set no time-limit; Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention (raised under Art. 13, reclassified under Art. 5 (4)): lack of clear and foreseeable provisions in domestic law that would provide for the procedure (of review of the lawfulness of detention) during the trial stage which is compatible with requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02,§ 86, 10 February 2011).
|
5,900 |
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply