The ECHR found violations of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Заголовок: The ECHR found violations of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 of the Convention for the Pro Сведения: 2018-08-11 05:44:12

Decision of the ECHR of 15 December 2016 on the case "Ignatov (Ignatov) v. Ukraine" (application No. 40583/15).

In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Ukraine.

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that he had been held in pre-trial detention for more than two years before his prosecution was terminated for lack of evidence, for the illegality and length of his detention, and the inadequacy of the judicial review procedures. The case was violated the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE


On February 21, 2013, following the adoption of the judgment of the European Court in the case "Kharchenko v. Ukraine" of 10 February 2011, complaint No. 40107/02, "Information Bulletin on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights" N 138), which revealed shortcomings in the domestic pre-trial detention system, the Ukrainian authorities submitted a revised plan of action, which indicated that the deficiencies in the legislation were largely eliminated after the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in 2012.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the implementation of the Kharchenko judgment in accordance with article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, subsequently noted that, although the new code significantly improved the procedure for pre-trial detention, it did not eliminate certain violations of Article 5 of the Convention, from the end of the investigation to the beginning of the trial (see Chanyev v. Ukraine, judgment of 9 October 2014, complaint no. 46193/13, "Information bulletin on the pre cognitive practice of the European Court of Human Rights "No. 178). The Committee of Ministers insisted on the urgent implementation of the remaining necessary legislative reforms and the need to ensure that the courts and prosecutors take all practicable measures to prevent further violations of Article 5 of the Convention in relation to pre-trial detention. He still retained the ruling in the Kharchenko case under "reinforced supervision."

In the present case, the applicant, who had been held in pre-trial detention for more than two years before his prosecution was stopped for lack of evidence, complained to the Court about the illegality and length of his detention and inadequate judicial review procedures (articles 1, 3 and 4 5 of the Convention).


ISSUES OF LAW


The Court unanimously found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (lack of motivation for domestic courts to extend detention), Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (length of pretrial detention) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (avoidance of prompt consideration of his applications for release).

In the application of Article 46 of the Convention. The violations of Article 5 of the Convention established in the applicant's case can be considered widespread in the case-law concerning Ukraine. These issues were considered to be the result of legislative gaps, and the authorities of the respondent State were asked to take urgent measures to bring their legislation and administrative practices in line with the conclusions of the Court in relation to article 5 of the Convention. However, as the present case shows, neither new legislation nor practice has corrected the situation (see also the conclusions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe). On this basis, the Court concluded that the most appropriate way to remedy violations is to introduce without delay changes in relevant legislation and adjust judicial and administrative practices to ensure compliance with the domestic criminal procedure with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.


COMPENSATION


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

Добавить комментарий

Защитный код
Обновить

© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.