Here’s a breakdown of the Rutkovskyy and Others v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on Human Rights in the cases of Rutkovskyy and three other applicants due to the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The Court also found violations regarding other complaints raised by some applicants, based on well-established case-law, and related to the lack of effective remedies for the excessive length of criminal proceedings. The ECHR ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as for costs and expenses. The decision consolidates four applications due to their similar subject matter. The Court found that domestic courts often relied on generalized and repetitive reasoning when extending detention, without adequately considering alternative measures or conducting proceedings with due diligence.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses four applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
* **Facts:** The judgment refers to an appended table that lists the applicants and details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 3:** The Court referenced previous judgments outlining the principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. It found a breach of Article 5 § 3, citing the excessive length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, referencing similar previous cases against Ukraine.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed other complaints raised by some applicants, finding violations based on its well-established case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts of compensation to be awarded to the applicants, considering its case-law and the documents in its possession.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
* Joined the applications.
* Declared the applications admissible.
* Held that there was a breach of Article 5 § 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention.
* Held that there were violations of the Convention regarding other complaints.
* Ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages and costs.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including applicant names, detention periods, specific defects in the detention orders, other complaints, and amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Excessive Length of Pre-trial Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be reasonable in length and that authorities must provide sufficient justification for its extension.
* **Defects in Detention Orders:** The Court highlighted specific defects in the detention orders, such as the fragility and repetitiveness of reasoning, failure to consider alternative measures, and lack of due diligence in conducting proceedings.
* **Other Violations:** The decision acknowledges other potential violations related to the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies, referencing specific previous cases.
* **Compensation:** The judgment sets a precedent for the amounts of compensation to be awarded in similar cases, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
* **** The decision has implications for Ukraine, requiring it to improve its practices regarding pre-trial detention and ensure effective remedies for violations of the Convention.
