{"id":20800,"date":"2023-04-13T10:41:00","date_gmt":"2023-04-13T10:41:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20800"},"modified":"2023-04-13T10:41:00","modified_gmt":"2023-04-13T10:41:00","slug":"case-of-korniyenko-and-others-v-ukraine-24520-19-and-2-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20800","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KORNIYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE – 24520\/19 and 2 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF KORNIYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 24520\/19 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 April 2023<\/p>\n

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

In the case of Korniyenko and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits, President,
\nMattias Guyomar,
\nMykola Gnatovskyy, judges,<\/p>\n

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The 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. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

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

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

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

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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\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\u00a0110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v.\u00a0the United Kingdom [GC], no.\u00a0543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a041-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n

8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a040107\/02, 10\u00a0February 2011 and Ignatov v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a040583\/15, 15\u00a0December 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Article 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

12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above, \u00a7 57), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n

4. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 April 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits
\nActing Deputy Registrar\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<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPeriod of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nLength of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0(in euros)<\/strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong>[2]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n24520\/19<\/p>\n

25\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Oleksandr Mykhaylovych KORNIYENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

Ponomarenko Denys Vasylyovych<\/p>\n

Odesa<\/td>\n

18\/10\/2018<\/p>\n

pending<\/td>\n

More than 4 years and 4 months and 12 days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention<\/td>\n2,700<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n1769\/21<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Volodymyr Sergiyovych GAYDUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Panchenko Mykola Ivanovych<\/p>\n

Kryvyy Rig<\/td>\n

03\/12\/2014<\/p>\n

pending<\/td>\n

More than 8 years and 2 months and 27 days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n2996\/22<\/p>\n

31\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Bogdan Leontiyovych GOVOR<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

Doarme Valeriy Semenovych<\/p>\n

Stryy<\/td>\n

22\/08\/2017 to<\/p>\n

20\/11\/2018<\/p>\n

29\/07\/2021 to<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

1 year and 2 months and 30 days<\/p>\n

10 months and 19 days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention<\/td>\n1,300<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n