{"id":22098,"date":"2024-01-18T11:32:42","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T11:32:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22098"},"modified":"2024-01-18T11:32:42","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T11:32:42","slug":"case-of-rolik-and-shandra-v-ukraine-13921-17-and-54870-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22098","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ROLIK AND SHANDRA v. UKRAINE – 13921\/17 and 54870\/21"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF ROLIK AND SHANDRA v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 13921\/17 and 54870\/21)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n

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

In the case of Rolik and Shandra 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,
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nMykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 14 December 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 Government\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

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

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

4. 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 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. The applicants complained of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

6. The Court reiterates that according to its established case-law under Article 5 \u00a7 3\u00a0of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition\u00a0sine qua non\u00a0for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the conduct of the proceedings. The Court has also held that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities.\u00a0When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures for\u00a0ensuring this person\u2019s appearance at trial. The requirement\u00a0for\u00a0the judicial officer to give \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d reasons for the detention \u2013 in addition to the persistence of reasonable suspicion \u2013 applies already at the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand, that is to say \u201cpromptly\u201d after the arrest (see, among other authorities, Buzadji v.\u00a0the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 87 and 102, 5 July 2016).<\/p>\n

7. In the leading case of Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744\/16, \u00a7\u00a7 158-81, 4\u00a0July 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

8. 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 domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629\/11, \u00a7 66, 20 October 2016), 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 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for 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 18 January 2024, 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 M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

_______________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)<\/p>\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><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPeriod of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt which issued detention order\/ examined appeal<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

1.<\/td>\n13921\/17<\/p>\n

10\/02\/2017<\/td>\n

Iryna Yuriyivna ROLIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/td>\n

Vronskyy Sergiy Valentynovych<\/p>\n

Odesa<\/td>\n

31\/08\/2016 to 22\/05\/2018<\/td>\nOdesa Prymorskyy District Court<\/td>\nfailure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice<\/td>\n2,000<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n54870\/21<\/p>\n

04\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Valeriy Oleksandrovych SHANDRA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/td>\n

Thuan Dit Dieudonn\u00e9 Gr\u00e9gory<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

07\/07\/2021 to 05\/11\/2021<\/td>\nPecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv<\/td>\nfailure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding,<\/p>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice,<\/p>\n

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint<\/td>\n

2,000<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

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

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