This judgment concerns six applications against Ukraine regarding the excessive length of pre-trial detention and other related violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was indeed excessive, violating Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Additionally, the Court identified other violations under the Convention based on its well-established case-law, considering complaints raised by some of the applicants. The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter and awarded sums to the applicants as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses.
The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of the applications, alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, and the application of Article 41 (regarding just satisfaction). The main provision is the finding of a breach of Article 5 § 3 due to the excessive length of pre-trial detention. Additionally, the decision addresses other violations related to the length of criminal proceedings, lack of effective remedies, and inadequate compensation for unlawful detention, referencing previous case-law such as *Kharchenko v. Ukraine*, *Ignatov v. Ukraine*, *Nechay v. Ukraine*, *Tymoshenko v. Ukraine*, and *Kotiy v. Ukraine*. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as the judgment refers to established case law.
**** The most important provisions of this decision are the confirmation of a violation of Article 5 § 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention and the acknowledgment of other related violations, particularly concerning the lack of effective remedies and compensation for unlawful detention. The decision highlights specific defects in the pre-trial detention process, such as failure to conduct proceedings diligently, fragility and repetitiveness of court reasoning, and failure to consider alternative measures of restraint. This ruling reinforces the need for Ukraine to ensure reasonable pre-trial detention periods, effective judicial review, and adequate compensation for violations of the Convention, and has implications for Ukrainians facing similar issues.
