I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KHOKHLOV v. CYPRUS.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TYMOSHENKO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 26951/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
20 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 February 2025,
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 22 June 2023. 2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW
4. The Court notes that the applicant died on 20 August 2023, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s son, Mr Oleksandr Pavlovych Tymoshenko, has requested to pursue the application on his father’s behalf. The Court normally permits the next of kin to pursue an application, provided they have a legitimate interest, where the original applicant died after lodging the application with the Court (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, 26 April 2016; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR‐XII; and Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014). The Court considers that Mr Oleksandr Tymoshenko has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application on behalf of his late father and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the case (see, among other authorities, Maylenskiy v. Russia, no. 12646/15, 4 October 2016). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text. 5. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). It is true that the provision in question does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention and for hearing applications for release. Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 39, ECHR 2006-VII). 7. In the leading case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table). 8. 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. 9. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the instant case. 10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 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 20 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Name of the first-instance court
Date of detention order
Other relevant dates
Appellate court or court examining request for release
Date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26951/23
22/06/2023
Pavlo Volodymyrovych TYMOSHENKO
1952
Died in 2023

Vasylkiv Court,
11/01/2023, 03/03/2023, 05/04/2023, 24/05/2023
Date of lodging appeal, 11/01/2023, 03/03/2023, 06/04/2023, 29/05/2023
Kyiv Appellate Court, 15/03/2023, 19/04/2023, 26/04/2023, 12/07/2023
lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87,
10 February 2011)
500

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TYMOSHENKO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 26951/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
20 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 February 2025,
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 22 June 2023. 2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW
4. The Court notes that the applicant died on 20 August 2023, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s son, Mr Oleksandr Pavlovych Tymoshenko, has requested to pursue the application on his father’s behalf. The Court normally permits the next of kin to pursue an application, provided they have a legitimate interest, where the original applicant died after lodging the application with the Court (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, 26 April 2016; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR‐XII; and Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014). The Court considers that Mr Oleksandr Tymoshenko has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application on behalf of his late father and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the case (see, among other authorities, Maylenskiy v. Russia, no. 12646/15, 4 October 2016). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text. 5. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). It is true that the provision in question does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention and for hearing applications for release. Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 39, ECHR 2006-VII). 7. In the leading case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table). 8. 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. 9. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the instant case. 10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 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 20 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Name of the first-instance court
Date of detention order
Other relevant dates
Appellate court or court examining request for release
Date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26951/23
22/06/2023
Pavlo Volodymyrovych TYMOSHENKO
1952
Died in 2023

Vasylkiv Court,
11/01/2023, 03/03/2023, 05/04/2023, 24/05/2023
Date of lodging appeal, 11/01/2023, 03/03/2023, 06/04/2023, 29/05/2023
Kyiv Appellate Court, 15/03/2023, 19/04/2023, 26/04/2023, 12/07/2023
lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87,
10 February 2011)
500

Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Name of the first-instance court
Date of detention order
Other relevant dates
Appellate court or court examining request for release
Date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26951/23
22/06/2023
Pavlo Volodymyrovych TYMOSHENKO
1952
Died in 2023

Vasylkiv Court,
11/01/2023, 03/03/2023, 05/04/2023, 24/05/2023
Date of lodging appeal, 11/01/2023, 03/03/2023, 06/04/2023, 29/05/2023
Kyiv Appellate Court, 15/03/2023, 19/04/2023, 26/04/2023, 12/07/2023
lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87,
10 February 2011)
500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.