Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 44475/08 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Fifth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 993 (06 December 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/993.html
Cite as: [2018] ECHR 993, CE:ECHR:2018:1206JUD004447508, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1206JUD004447508
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 44475/08and 3 others -
see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karelskiy and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O'Leary,
President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia,
judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt,
Acting
Deputy Section Registrar,
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:Article 5 § 3
"3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (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."
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 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-X, with further references). 8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 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. 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' pre-trial detention was excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above) and Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012.IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 60112/09the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning excessive length of proceedings. 13. The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Merit v. Ukraine , cited above), considers that this complaint is inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:"If 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."
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16. The 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.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 60112/09inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(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;
(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;
6. Dismisses, in application no. 44475/08, the remainder of the applicant's claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt
Síofra O'Leary
Acting Deputy Registrar
President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
|
Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant's name Date of birth |
Representative's name and location |
Period of detention |
Length of detention |
Other complaints under well-established case-law |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] | |
|
|
04/09/2008 |
Sergey Nikolayevich Karelskiy 16/04/1954
|
Roman Yuriyovych Martynovskyy Kyiv |
27/10/2003 to 27/04/2012 |
8 years, 6 months and 1 day
|
Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: from 26/03/2004 the applicant was detained either without any court order or based on a court order without setting out the grounds and/or time for the applicant's continued detention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 70-76, 10 February 2011);
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings : from 26/09/2003 to 15/11/2012 9 years, 1 month and 21 days for 2 levels of jurisdiction
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention: It was not possible for the applicant to receive compensation for the unlawful detention (see Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012). |
6,800 |
|
|
04/11/2009 |
Roman Olegovich Snezhko 27/08/1979 |
Vyacheslav Petrovych Kolomiyets Lugansk |
22/03/2007 to 02/03/2009 |
1 year, 11 months and 9 days
|
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: The courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant's petitions for release. |
2,000 |
|
|
06/04/2010 |
Aleksey Aleksandrovich Burkun 20/08/1979 |
|
28/10/2008 to 29/12/2009
08/06/2010 to 13/08/2010 |
1 year, 2 months and 2 days
2 months and 6 days
|
Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: In respect of the period of detention from 28/02/2009 to 17/04/2009 not covered by any court decision
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention |
5,900 |
|
|
16/03/2018 |
Volodymyr Viktorovych Dmytryshyn 05/11/1986 |
Mykhaylo Ivanovych Subota Uzhgorod |
20/05/2017 to19/06/2018 |
1 year and 1 month
|
|
700 |
[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.