European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF MEFEDOV v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 33279/16)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

16 May 2024

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

In the case of Mefedov v. Ukraine,

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

 Carlo Ranzoni, President,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 33279/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 5 June 2016 by a Russian national, Mr Yevgeniy Igorevich Mefedov ("the applicant"), who was born in 1983, lives in Odesa and was represented by Mr D.Y. Matveyev, a lawyer practising in Moscow;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government ("the Government"), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

Having deliberated in private on 11 April 2024,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The application concerns the applicant's complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness and reasonableness of his detention, and under Article 5 § 5 concerning the absence of a right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3.

2.  On 6 May 2014 the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa ("the local court") ordered the applicant's detention in the context of an investigation into mass disorder in Odesa on 2 May 2014. The reasons for his detention were the gravity of the charges, and the risk of his absconding and hindering the investigation or continuing with his criminal activities and influencing other participants in the proceedings. The applicant's detention was extended by the local court a number of times with reference to similar reasons.

3.  During the preparatory hearing on 26 March 2015, the Malynovskyi District Court of Odessa, acting as the trial court, issued a ruling pursuant to Article 315 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine, nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, § 57, 16 September 2022) ordering that the applicant's detention "shall be deemed to be extended" until 24 May 2015, without giving any reasons for that detention. No appeal lay against that ruling.

4.  On 27 November 2015, the trial court, by a decision that was also not amenable to appeal, extended the applicant's detention while allowing for his release on bail as an alternative measure. On 30 November 2015 the applicant paid the bail, but he was not released since on the same day the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal ("the Court of Appeal") allowed the prosecutor's appeal against the decision of 27 November 2015 and suspended its enforcement. The applicant remained in detention.

5.  On 3 December 2015 a judge of the Malynovskyi District Court of Odesa refused an application by the applicant for his release. The court found no reasons to examine his application in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal of 30 November 2015 by which the enforcement of the trial court's decision of 27 November 2015 had been suspended. On 8 December 2015 that decision of the District Court was quashed on appeal and the applicant's application was remitted for fresh examination. On 4 February 2016 the Malynovskyi District Court of Odesa again examined the applicant's application for release and refused it as unsubstantiated.

6.  On 4 December 2015 the trial court, following an application by the prosecutor, reconsidered its decision of 27 November 2015 and removed from its operative part the provisions regarding the possibility for the applicant to be released on bail.

7.  On 15 January 2016 the trial court extended the applicant's detention for reasons similar to those indicated in the local court's decision of 6 May 2014 (see paragraph 2 above). His detention was further extended a number of times on similar grounds. During the above period, from 27 May to 24 June 2016, the applicant's detention was replaced by 24-hour house arrest (see Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 138, 4 July 2019).

8.  On 18 September 2017 the trial court acquitted the applicant and released him from detention. Appeal proceedings are still pending.

9.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the Malynovskyi District Court of Odesa of 26 March 2015 on the extension of his detention had been arbitrary as it had not contained any reasons for that detention, and that he had been unlawfully kept in detention after he had paid bail on 30 November 2015.

THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT

1. SCOPE OF THE CASE

10.  After the communication of the present case, the applicant raised complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention alleging that after his release on 18 September 2017 following his acquittal, he was unlawfully re-arrested in the context of other proceedings and was detained in poor conditions. Since these new complaints are not an elaboration of the original complaints on which the parties have commented, it is inappropriate to take these matters up in the context of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Having examined the Government's objection that the applicant's complaint concerning the arbitrariness of his detention on the basis of the court decision of 26 March 2015 was lodged out of time, the Court notes that in the light of its findings in the case of Popovych v. Ukraine (no. 44704/11, §§ 28-33, 22 April 2021), the applicant's detention shall be regarded as a continuing situation. The Government's objection is therefore dismissed.

12.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

1. As to the applicant's detention pursuant to the decision of 26 March 2015

13.  The Government submitted that the extension of the applicant's detention on 26 March 2015 had been lawful and therefore in accordance with the Convention. The applicant disagreed.

14.  The Court observes that in Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, §§ 31-37, 15 December 2016), the domestic court's decision on the applicant's detention, given pursuant to Article 315 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was found to have been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as it had not afforded the applicant in that case adequate protection from arbitrariness. The Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case and considers that the applicant's detention on the basis of the court's decision of 26 March 2015, that is between 26 March and 24 May 2015 (see paragraph 3 above), was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1.

2. As to the applicant's detention after bail payment

15.  The Government submitted that the suspension of the enforcement of the trial court's decision of 27 November 2015 (see paragraph 4 above) had been justified by the need to ensure the right to access to the Court of Appeal within the detention proceedings. They added that that approach had been confirmed by the Supreme Court in its decision of 12 October 2017 in case no. 757/49263/15-к and later by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 13 June 2019 in case no. 4-р/2019 (see Olekseychuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 5765/20, § 5, 15 December 2022). Furthermore, they maintained that the amount paid by the applicant as bail had been returned to him.

16.  The general principles established in the Court's case-law on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention have been summarised in Denis and Irvine v. Belgium ([GC], nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17, §§ 123-33, 1 June 2021).

17.  The Court observes that following the bail payment on 30 November 2015 the applicant was to be released. However, he remained in detention because the enforcement of the relevant court decision had been suspended by the Court of Appeal on 27 November 2015.

18.  The Court further notes that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the relevant time did not foresee a procedure by which a trial court's decision extending an accused's detention could be appealed against. The case-law of the domestic courts referred to by the Government cannot be accepted as relevant since it concerns 2017 and 2019, which is much later than the events under consideration in the present case. Therefore, at the moment of the events in question there existed no legal provision allowing an appeal against a trial court's decisions extending the detention of an accused. Similarly, there existed no legal provision allowing a suspension of the enforcement of a court decision concerning the detention of an accused or a suspect. The "lawfulness" requirement has therefore not been complied with. In this connection, the authorities' failure to release the applicant when the bail was paid on 30 November 2015 was not in accordance with domestic law and was in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

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

19.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of his lengthy and unjustified pre-trial detention. The Court notes that he was deprived of his liberty from the day of his detention on 6 May 2014 until his acquittal on 18 September 2017, that is for more than three years and four months. The applicant furthermore raised a complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he had not had an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3. Being covered by the 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 grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the above issues disclose a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ignatov (cited above, §§ 41-42) and Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015) respectively.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20.  The applicant claimed an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the alleged violations without specifying its amount.

21.  The Government submitted that there was no ground for an award.

22.  The Court awards the applicant 3,900 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention from 26 March to 24 May 2015;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the authorities' failure to release the applicant on 30 November 2015 following the payment of bail;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the applicant's lengthy and unjustified detention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention regarding the lack of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3;
6. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Martina Keller Carlo Ranzoni
 Deputy Registrar President