I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in DOBRYN v. UKRAINE.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-04-29
  • Communication date: 2019-05-02
  • Application number(s): 27916/12
  • Country:   UKR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 5-3, 5-4
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
    Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.877329
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Ivanovych Dobryn, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 August 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of fraud.
His pre-trial detention was extended several times.
In particular, on 3 December 2010 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal extended it to seven months and twenty-five days (until 1 April 2011).
On 15 March 2011 the criminal case against the applicant was forwarded to the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Zaporizhzhya for trial.
According to the applicant on 14 April 2011 that court committed him for trial.
By the same decision the court maintained his detention on remand.
The applicant alleges that he was not served with its copy.
On an unspecified date the judges of the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Zaporizhzhya sitting in the applicant’s case had recused themselves from the case and the latter was transferred to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the trial court”).
In the course of the trial, on 27 November 2011 the applicant introduced a request to review the lawfulness of his arrest on 6 August 2010 and further detention pending trial.
He alleges that the trial court ignored his request.
At the court hearing on 18 January 2012, the applicant asked the trial court to release him from detention.
On the same day the trial court refused that application, having stated that it was not foreseen by the law.
On 28 March 2012 the trial court allowed the applicant’s application and released him from detention pending trial.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention from 2 to 14 April 2011 was not covered by any judicial decision and was therefore unlawful.
The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of his pre‐trial detention.
Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the trial court ignored his application for release which he had lodged on 27 November 2011, and that the trial court refused his other application for release without providing reasons on 18 January 2012.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF DOBRYN v. UKRAINE
(Application no.
27916/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
29 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dobryn v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,Jovan Ilievski,Mattias Guyomar, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 April 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 April 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr Y.O. Dobryn, a lawyer practising in Zaporizhzhya. 3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4.
The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. The applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6.
The applicant complained principally of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3.
Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7.
The Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. The Court has also held that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring this person’s appearance at trial. The requirement for the judicial officer to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the detention – in addition to the persistence of reasonable suspicion – applies already at the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand, that is to say “promptly” after the arrest (see, among other authorities, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87 and 102, 5 July 2016). 8. In the leading case of Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4 July 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. 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 domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ pre-trial detention. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). 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 Yeloyev v. Ukraine (no. 17283/02, § 50, 6 November 2008) and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, § 71, 10 February 2011). 12. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 14. 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.”
15.
The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for non‐pecuniary damage. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, § 66, 20 October 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant. 16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya MaradudinaStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
per application
(in euros)[2]
27916/12
27/04/2012
Oleksiy Ivanovych DOBRYN
1962
From 06/08/2010
to 28/03/2012
Leninskyy
District Court
of Zaporizhzhya,

Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court
of Zaporizhzhya,

Shevchenkivskyy District Court
of Zaporizhzhya
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
Art.
5 (1) (c) –
unlawful pre-trial detention - the period between 02/04/2011 and 14/04/2011 (between sending the case to a court and the first hearing) was not covered by any decision –
a recurrent problem in the Ukrainian cases (see, Yeloyev v. Ukraine (no.
17283/02, § 50, 6 November 2008) and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, § 71, 10 February 2011)
2,600
250

Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
per application
(in euros)[2]
27916/12
27/04/2012
Oleksiy Ivanovych DOBRYN
1962
From 06/08/2010
to 28/03/2012
Leninskyy
District Court
of Zaporizhzhya,

Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court
of Zaporizhzhya,

Shevchenkivskyy District Court
of Zaporizhzhya
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
Art.
5 (1) (c) –
unlawful pre-trial detention - the period between 02/04/2011 and 14/04/2011 (between sending the case to a court and the first hearing) was not covered by any decision –
a recurrent problem in the Ukrainian cases (see, Yeloyev v. Ukraine (no.
17283/02, § 50, 6 November 2008) and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, § 71, 10 February 2011)
2,600
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.