Okay, here’s a breakdown of the Strogush and Kropachev v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of Strogush and Kropachev due to the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The Court also identified other violations related to deficiencies in the proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of detention and the lack of effective compensation for the violation of Article 5 § 3. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses. The decision emphasizes the importance of reasonable time limits in pre-trial detention and the need for prompt and effective remedies when these rights are violated.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged against Ukraine under Article 34 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the key facts, stating that the applicants complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.
* **Joinder of the Applications:** Due to the similar subject matter, the Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 3:** The Court references its established case-law on the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3. It cites previous judgments against Ukraine (Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine) on similar issues.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addresses other complaints raised by Strogush, finding additional violations based on its well-established case-law. These include deficiencies in the proceedings for reviewing the lawfulness of detention (Article 5(4)) and the lack of effective compensation for violations of Article 5(3) (Article 5(5)).
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court orders Ukraine to pay specific amounts to the applicants for damages and expenses, as detailed in the appended table.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court formally declares the applications admissible, holds that there was a breach of Article 5 § 3, finds violations related to other complaints, and orders the respondent State to pay the specified amounts.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed breakdown of each application, including the applicant’s details, detention period, specific defects identified, other violations, and the amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for its Use:**
* **Excessive Length of Pre-Trial Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must not be excessively long and that the reasons given by national courts for prolonging detention must be substantial and relevant.
* **Deficiencies in Review Proceedings:** The decision highlights the importance of promptness in reviewing the lawfulness of detention. Delays in examining appeals against detention orders can constitute a violation of Article 5(4).
* **Right to Compensation:** The decision underscores the need for an effective legal mechanism to compensate individuals whose rights under Article 5 § 3 have been violated.
* **Specific Defects:** The appendix provides concrete examples of “fragility of the reasons employed by the courts” and “use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice,” which can be used to assess similar cases.
* **Amounts Awarded:** The amounts awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses, can serve as a reference point in similar cases.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
