Popovych v. Ukraine (Application no. 44704/11)

A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.


Article 5 § 1 

47.  The Court further observes that although on 19 October 2010 the District Court upheld the pre-trial detention measure in respect of the applicant it neither set a time-limit for his continued detention nor gave any reasons for its decision. This left the applicant in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds for his detention after that date. In this connection the Court reiterates that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (ibid., § 75).

48.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the period following 13 October 2010.

Article 5 § 4 

52.  The Court notes that in the course of the period of time complained of it was not possible for the applicant to obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention from the end of the investigation (29 September 2010) and until the committal hearing of 19 October 2010, as the examination of any such request would await the committal hearing (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, cited above, § 86). Thereafter, the lawfulness of the applicants detention was examined by the domestic courts on 19 October 2010, when committing him for trial, and on 30 May and 14 September 2011. However, the decisions delivered as a result do not fully satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

53.  The Court notes that in other similar cases previously decided it has been faced with the issue of the domestic courts failure to provide an adequate response to applicants arguments as to the necessity of their release (see Kharchenko, cited above, § 100). Likewise, in the instant case the domestic courts simply indicated that there were no grounds for the applicants release, without providing any further explanation and without carrying out any examination of the circumstances of the applicantparticular situation (ibid., § 85). In the light of these findings, the Court does not find it necessary to address the remainder of the applicants allegations under this head, insofar as they fall to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

54.  The Court considers accordingly that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.


De versie van de browser die je gebruikt is verouderd en wordt niet ondersteund.
Upgrade je browser om de website optimaal te gebruiken.