I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in GNEZDOV v. UKRAINE.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-03-06
- Communication date: 2014-05-19
- Application number(s): 68596/11
- Country: UKR
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.541068
- Prediction: No violation
Inconsistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vsevolodovich Gnezdov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Simferopol.
During the events described below he suffered from asthma.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention On an unspecified date the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for bribery.
On 24 February 2011 the police detained the applicant.
On 26 February 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol, relying on Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered his pre-trial detention until Saturday, 24 April 2011.
The court stated without elaborating further or referring to concrete facts, that if at liberty the applicant could abscond, hinder investigation or pursue his criminal activities.
On 10 March 2011 the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 26 February 2011.
On 21 April 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court rejected the prosecutors’ request to prolong the applicant’s detention after 24 April 2011.
The applicant was released from the pre-trial detention centre on Monday, 26 April 2011.
The applicant complained to the prosecutors, referring to the decision of 26 February 2011 and Article 156 of the Code, that his detention could not last longer than two months, thus he should have been released on 24 April 2011 and that his ensuing detention had no legal basis.
The prosecutors replied by a letter acknowledging that the applicant’s pre-trial detention ended on 24 April 2011.
They argued, however, that as 24 and 25 April 2011 were non-working days the applicant was released only on 26 April 2011 pursuant to Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.
Conditions of the applicant’s detention During the first two weeks of his detention the applicant was kept in the Simferopol ITT.
He was not allowed to have daily walks or shower.
Afterwards the applicant was transferred to the cell no.
40 of the Simferopol SIZO.
The window in the cell was not glazed and there was no heating.
Both in the SIZO and the ITT the applicant was kept in the cells where detainees smoked and electric lightning was constantly on.
The applicant did not have access to all the medications which he needed in connection with his asthma.
B.
Relevant domestic law Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the calculation of terms, provides that if the last day falls on a non-working day, the following first working day is considered as the last day of the term concerned.
Under Article 156 of this Code, pre-trial detention during pre-trial investigation shall not last more than two months.
If the term of pre-trial detention expired and if it was not extended in accordance with the procedure envisaged by the Code, the body of inquiry, investigator, or prosecutor shall immediately release the person from detention.
Articles 156 further stipulates that Governors of pre-trial detention facilities shall immediately release from detention any accused in whose respect no court resolution extending the term of pre-trial detention has been received on the day of expiry of the terms of pre-trial detention.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the conditions of his detention fell short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and were incompatible with his state of health.
He complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no justification to place him in detention.
The applicant further complains under the same provision that his detention after 24 April 2011 was unlawful.
Judgment
FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF GNEZDOV v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 68596/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gnezdov 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 6 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 26 October 2011. 2. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about his allegedly unlawful detention in view of the irregularities described in the appended table. He also raised other complaints under the Convention. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. 3. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW
5. The applicant complained of the unlawful detention in view of the events described in the appended table. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references). 7. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references). 8. The Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases set out in the appended table. 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 applicant’s detention in the circumstances described in the appended table was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 10. It follows that the applicant’s complaints are admissible and disclose a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 11. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention. 12. 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. 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, 29 January 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant. 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 6 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 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Period of unlawful detention
Specific defects
Relevant domestic decision
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
68596/11
26/10/2011
Aleksandr Vsevolodovich GNEZDOV
1961
26/02/2011 –
24/04/2011
24/04/2011 –
26/04/2011
arbitrary detention in view of the domestic court’s failure to set the time-limit for detention and to provide proper justification for it (Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, §§ 55-56, 18 March 2008; Khayredinov
v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 28 30, 14 October 2010)
Delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko
v. Ukraine,
no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
The Crimea Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol of 26/02/2011 ordering detention until 24/04/2011
2,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GNEZDOV v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 68596/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gnezdov 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 6 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 26 October 2011. 2. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about his allegedly unlawful detention in view of the irregularities described in the appended table. He also raised other complaints under the Convention. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. 3. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW
5. The applicant complained of the unlawful detention in view of the events described in the appended table. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references). 7. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references). 8. The Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases set out in the appended table. 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 applicant’s detention in the circumstances described in the appended table was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 10. It follows that the applicant’s complaints are admissible and disclose a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 11. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention. 12. 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. 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, 29 January 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant. 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 6 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 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Period of unlawful detention
Specific defects
Relevant domestic decision
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
68596/11
26/10/2011
Aleksandr Vsevolodovich GNEZDOV
1961
26/02/2011 –
24/04/2011
24/04/2011 –
26/04/2011
arbitrary detention in view of the domestic court’s failure to set the time-limit for detention and to provide proper justification for it (Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, §§ 55-56, 18 March 2008; Khayredinov
v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 28 30, 14 October 2010)
Delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko
v. Ukraine,
no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
The Crimea Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol of 26/02/2011 ordering detention until 24/04/2011
2,600
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Period of unlawful detention
Specific defects
Relevant domestic decision
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
68596/11
26/10/2011
Aleksandr Vsevolodovich GNEZDOV
1961
26/02/2011 –
24/04/2011
24/04/2011 –
26/04/2011
arbitrary detention in view of the domestic court’s failure to set the time-limit for detention and to provide proper justification for it (Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, §§ 55-56, 18 March 2008; Khayredinov
v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 28 30, 14 October 2010)
Delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko
v. Ukraine,
no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
The Crimea Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol of 26/02/2011 ordering detention until 24/04/2011
2,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.