European Court of Human Rights

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KOMAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 68786/14 and 6 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 June 2023

 

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

In the case of Komar and Others v. Ukraine,

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

          Carlo Ranzoni, President,
          Lado Chanturia,
          María Elósegui, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2023,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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. In some of the applications they 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.     SCOPE OF APPLICATION NO. 33066/16

6.  In his submissions of 8 April 2022 made in reply to the Government’s observations, the applicant in application no. 33066/16 complained, for the first time, that he had been denied family visits in detention.

7.  The Court notes that this new complaint does not constitute an elaboration or elucidation of the applicant’s original complaints, on which the parties have commented. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to take up these matters in the context of the present case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 122 and 129, 20 March 2018 and Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, §§ 95-96, 24 March 2016).

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

8.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

9.  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).

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

13.  In applications set out in the appended table the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court. 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 the cases set out in the appended table.

V.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14.  In applications nos. 68786/14 and 33066/16 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

15.  As to the complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in applications nos. 68786/14 and 33066/16 (insofar as the latter concerned participation of lay judges in examination of matters of detention), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the case and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of this part of the applications (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and, for example, Minayev and Korzh v. Ukraine, nos. 82724/17 and 40291/18 [Committee], § 11, 16 December 2021).

16.  As to the applicant’s complaint in application no. 33066/16 that certain statements and publications resulted in a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 2 and Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, the Court observes that the applicant’s several defamation claims were successful, having resulted in the acknowledgement of a violation of his rights and an award of compensation. The applicant did not provide any convincing explanation as to why he still considered his rights violated despite the positive outcome of those proceedings. Nor did he explain why the same remedy would have been ineffective in respect of those episodes where he decided not to pursue it (see Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, § 63, 3 November 2022, and Januškevičienė v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, § 59, 3 September 2019, with further references). Accordingly, these complaints should be rejected in part as being manifestly ill-founded and in part for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

17.  In application no. 33066/16 the applicant also raised an additional complaint under Article 3 of the Convention as to his nutrition on hearing days. The Court considers that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  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.”

19.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above, § 57), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction in application no. 33066/16.

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, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in applications nos. 68786/14 and 33066/16 (insofar as the latter concerned participation of lay judges in examination of matters of detention), and dismisses the remainder of application no. 33066/16 as inadmissible;

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. In application no. 33066/16 the amount awarded for costs and expenses is to be paid directly into the account of the applicant’s representative, Mr A. Kristenko;

(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 the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 33066/16.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                              Carlo Ranzoni
    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

                       

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)