Last Updated on May 11, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 14 November 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 76273/11
Ivan Volodymyrovych ROMANOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 8 December 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Volodymyrovych Romanov, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1984 and died in 2015. He is represented before the Court by Ms O.O. Richko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. In a letter which the Court received on 2 August 2018, the lawyer informed the Court that the applicant’s mother, Ms SvitlanaOleksiyivnaRomanova, wished to pursue the proceedings on his behalf. The lawyer also provided a letter of authority to that effect, signed by the applicant’s mother.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 June 2011 a criminal case of infliction of grievous bodily harm was instituted against the applicant.
On 25 June 2011 the investigators reclassified the charges against the applicant as attempted murder.
On 21 July 2011 the applicant appeared before the investigator within the framework of the criminal investigation into attempted murder and gave an undertaking not to abscond.
On 25 July 2011 the investigator arrested the applicant and placed him in police custody on suspicion of attempted murder. The investigator drew up a report on his arrest, making a general reference to Article 106 § 2 and Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the official report, the applicant had been arrested on the grounds that
“1. [he] was caught on the scene of the crime immediately after an offence had been committed, and
2. eyewitnesses, including the victim, directly identified [him] as the one who had committed the offence”.
It stated that his arrest was justified by the necessity of preventing him from evading justice or obstructing the establishment of the truth, and to ensure that any eventual court judgment could be executed.
On 26 July 2011 a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was carried out. The experts provided the following conclusions:
“1. Mr Romanov is currently showing signs of chronic mental illness in the form of paranoid schizophrenia. The present psychiatric condition of [Mr Romanov] is such that he is unaware of and cannot control his actions.
2. At the time of the offence with which he has been charged, Mr Romanov was affected by the above-mentioned mental illness and could not have been aware of or controlled his actions.
3. In view of his mental health Mr Romanov requires involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital under strict supervision”.
On 28 July 2011 the KharkivKyivskyi District Court extended the applicant’s detention in police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining an assessment of his personality. No further reasons were provided by the court.
On 4 August 2011 the KharkivKyivskyi District Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention without specifying any time-limits. The court referred in its decision to the conclusions of the psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011 and stated that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence and might otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further reasons were provided by the court, which further ruled that the applicant was to be detained in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre (“the Kharkiv SIZO”).
On 11 August 2011 that decision was upheld on appeal.
On 12 September 2011 the investigator requested compulsory psychiatric treatment for the applicant. On 19 September 2011 the investigator’s request and the case file were transferred to the KharkivKyivskyi District Court.
On 2 December 2011 the KharkivKyivskyi District Court committed the applicant for compulsory psychiatric treatment at a special psychiatric facility under strict supervision. In substantiating its decision the court referred to the conclusions of the forensic psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011. The court also specified that the applicant was to be held in the Kharkiv SIZO pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility.
The applicant and his defence lawyer appealed against this decision on 9 and 8 December 2011 respectively.
On 15 December 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals without examination, on the ground that the applicant and his defence lawyer had both missed the time-limit for lodging their appeals without having requested an extension of that time-limit.
On 7 February 2012 the applicant was placed at the psychiatric hospital under strict supervision pursuant to the court decision of 2 December 2011.
Eventually, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal gave leave for an appeal against the court decision of 2 December 2011, but dismissed it on 6 August 2012.
On 15 October 2013 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court.
On 14 November 2013 the DnipropetrovskKrasnogvardiyskyi District Court refused a request from the doctor at the psychiatric hospital for an extension of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 21 November 2013 that decision became final.
On 23 November 2013 the applicant was discharged from the psychiatric hospital. He died on 8 November 2015.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 28 December 1960 can be found in the judgment in the case of Osypenko v. Ukraine (no. 4634/04, §§ 32-33, 9 November 2010).
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that
(i) his arrest by the police on 25 July 2011 was arbitrary;
(ii) the court’s decision of 28 July 2011 to extend his detention in police custody to ten days in order to obtain an assessment of his personality lacked justification;
(iii) his continued detention after the expiration of the specified term of detention, pursuant to the court’s decision of 4 August 2011, was arbitrary; and
(iv) his detention in the Kharkiv SIZO from 2 December 2011 pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility was unjustified and unacceptably long.
2. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the court’s decision of 4 August 2011 ordering his continued detention was arbitrary and lacked reasoning.
3. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he had no enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly arbitrary detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the light of his allegations that:
(i) his arrest by the police on 25 July 2011 was arbitrary (see, for example, Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012);
(ii) the court’s decision of 28 July 2011 extending his detention in police custody to ten days in order to obtain an assessment of his personality lacked justification (see, for example, Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, § 93, 16 May 2013);
(iii) his continued detention after the expiry of the term of detention pursuant to the court’s decision of 4 August 2011 was arbitrary (see, for example,Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 71, 10 February 2011); and
(iv) his detention in the Kharkiv SIZO from 2 December 2011 pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility was unjustified and unacceptably long (see, for example, Pankiewicz v. Poland, no. 34151/04, § 45, 12 February 2008)?
2. Was the court’s decision of 4 August 2011, ordering the applicant’s continued detention, free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91 and 102, 5 July 2016)?
3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his alleged detention in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, 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)?
Leave a Reply