FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SKLYAR AND YEKUSHENKO v. UKRAINE
\n(Applications nos. 28513\/10 and 47646\/10)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Sklyar and Yekushenko v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President, Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n Article5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201c3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(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.\u201d<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107\/02, 10\u00a0February 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.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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\u2019 pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in application no. 47646\/10 also submitted a complaint under Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention which raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court relating to unlawful pre-trial detention (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 (no.\u00a040107\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 70-76, 10 February 2011).<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants further raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined those other complaintsin the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table to the applicant in application no.47646\/10. It rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by him. As concerns the applicant in application no.28513\/10, the Court makes no award since he failed to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detentionand the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table,admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention in application no. 47646\/10(see appended table);<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no.\u00a047646\/10, 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;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction by the applicant in application no. 47646\/10.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161Mits,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/strong>
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/strong><\/p>\n