{"id":1455,"date":"2019-04-23T12:05:17","date_gmt":"2019-04-23T12:05:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1455"},"modified":"2021-09-22T11:57:51","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T11:57:51","slug":"case-of-grigoryev-v-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1455","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF GRIGORYEV v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF GRIGORYEV v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 32569\/08)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 March 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Grigoryev v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 14 February 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 an application 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 25 June 2008.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr I. F. Tkach, a lawyer practising in Sevastopol.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of judicial review of that detention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

Article\u00a05\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.\u00a0Poland [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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0This complaint is therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted another complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court concerning the excessive length of judicial review of detention (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\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 (cited above).<\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

12.\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

13.\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.<\/p>\n

14.\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\u00a0Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention as regards the excessive length of judicial review of detention (see appended table);<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Liv Tigerstedt\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

Acting 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

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n

Period of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nLength of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

32569\/08<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2008<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Valeryevich Grigoryev<\/strong><\/p>\n

25\/06\/1983<\/td>\n

30\/11\/2004 to 19\/09\/2005<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

06\/07\/2006 to 11\/06\/2007<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

14\/08\/2007 to 18\/02\/2009<\/td>\n

9 months and 21 days<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

11 months and 6 days<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1 year, 6 months and<\/p>\n

5 days<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – reclassified complaint under Article 13: domestic courts failed to provide an adequate response to the applicants\u2019 arguments as to the necessity of his release but simply reiterated a\u00a0standard set of grounds \u2013 rulings of 21\/12\/2006, 11\/04\/2007, 13\/03\/2008, 01\/09\/2008, 25\/11\/2008<\/td>\n5,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n