Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Kraynyak and Gumenyuk v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns complaints by two Ukrainian nationals regarding the length of their pre-trial detention, the speed of appeal examinations against detention orders, and the lack of effective compensation for these alleged violations. The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the second applicant’s detention. Additionally, the Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 due to the delayed examination of appeals against detention orders for both applicants, and a violation of Article 5 § 5 regarding the second applicant’s lack of effective right to compensation. The first applicant’s complaint regarding the length of pre-trial detention was declared inadmissible due to a previous similar examination.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment addresses complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, focusing on the length and justification of pre-trial detention, the speed of appeal examinations, and the right to compensation.
* **Preliminary Matter:** The Court addressed the issue of the second applicant’s death and the standing of his parents to continue the proceedings. It determined that the parents had a legitimate interest in pursuing the case on his behalf.
* **Article 5 § 3 (Length of Detention):** The Court declared the first applicant’s complaint inadmissible, as it had already been examined in a previous case. It found a violation of Article 5 § 3 for the second applicant, citing the excessive length of his detention (over seven years and ten months) and the failure of domestic courts to display special diligence after the pre-trial investigation was completed.
* **Article 5 § 4 (Speed of Appeal Examinations):** The Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 for both applicants due to the considerable delays in examining their appeals against the extension of detention orders.
* **Article 5 § 5 (Right to Compensation):** The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 5 for the second applicant, citing a lack of effective right to compensation for the violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded EUR 3,000 to the second applicant’s parents for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 70 for costs and expenses, to be paid to the applicants’ representative. The first applicant was deemed to have received sufficient just satisfaction through the finding of a violation.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Lengthy Pre-Trial Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that lengthy pre-trial detention requires “special diligence” from domestic authorities, particularly after the completion of the pre-trial investigation.
* **Speedy Examination of Appeals:** The judgment highlights the importance of examining appeals against detention orders “speedily,” and that considerable delays without adequate explanation constitute a violation of Article 5 § 4.
* **Right to Compensation:** The decision underscores the right to an effective remedy, including compensation, for violations of Article 5, particularly in cases of unlawful or excessively lengthy detention.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
