European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF IGNATCHENKO v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 27265/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ignatchenko v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

  Lətif Hüseynov, President,
  Lado Chanturia,
  Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 February 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.     The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 6 June 2018.

2.     The applicant was represented by Mr O.M. Lysak , a lawyer practising in Kyiv.

3.     The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.     The applicant's details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.     The applicant complained of the unlawful detention.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention

6.     The applicant complained that she had been detained unlawfully (see for further details appended table). She relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 5 § 1

"1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;"

7.     The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references).

8.     Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos.   35553/12, 36678/12and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references).

9.     The Court found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases set out in the appended table.

10.     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 applicant's detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

11.     It follows that the applicant's complaints are admissible and disclose a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.     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."

13.     The applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule  
77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.

  Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov

  Acting Deputy Registrar   President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

(unlawful detention)