Case Law

The Case Law database provides access to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports), the Committee of Ministers (resolutions), and the Court of Justice of the European Union.


CASE DATE:
Saturday, 10 Oct 2015
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment, Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation) No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)
  • SUBJECT MATTER:

    (Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Degrading treatment (Art. 3) Inhuman treatment (Art. 3) Positive obligations (Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Lawful arrest or detention (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-4) Speediness of review (Art. 5-5) Compensation (Art. 13) Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13) Effective remedy (Art. 34) Individual applications (Art. 34) Hinder the exercise of the right of petition


    DETAIL:

    A. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention 100. The applicant complained that his detention from 29 January to 9 March 2010 had not been covered by any court decision. 101. He also complained that from 9 March 2010 to 23 May 2011 his detention had been unlawful because the court decision of 9 March 2010 had not contained any reasons for his detention or fixed any time-limit for it. The applicant also complained that the national legislation did not allow the courts ordering or extending his pre-trial detention to examine whether there was a “reasonable” suspicion to keep him in detention. B. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 110. The applicant complained that the overall length of his pre-trial detention had not been justified. He referred to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 5, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 13, 34

JUSTICIA European Rights Network