****
Here’s a breakdown of the Jovanović and Others v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to the excessive length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention. The Court also identified violations related to the length of judicial review, criminal proceedings, lack of effective remedies, and compensation for Article 5 violations, referencing its established case-law. The applicants’ complaints were joined, declared admissible, and the Court awarded each applicant EUR 3,900 for damages, plus EUR 250 for costs and expenses. The decision underscores the importance of reasonable detention periods and effective legal remedies.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, the representation of the applicants, and the notification to the Ukrainian Government.
* **Facts:** It identifies the applicants and provides relevant details of their applications. The core complaint revolves around the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 5 § 3 Violation:** The Court reiterates the established principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. It references previous judgments (Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine) where similar violations were found. The Court concludes that the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive, constituting a breach of Article 5 § 3.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also addresses other complaints related to the Convention, referring to its well-established case-law. These complaints are declared admissible, and the Court finds violations based on its previous findings in similar cases.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court, considering the documents and its case-law (particularly Ignatov), awards specific sums to the applicants as compensation.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
* Joins the applications.
* Declares the applications admissible.
* Holds that there was a breach of Article 5 § 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention.
* Holds that there were violations of the Convention regarding other complaints under established case-law.
* Orders the respondent State to pay the applicants the specified amounts within three months, with interest on any delayed payments.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, detention periods, specific defects in the proceedings, other complaints, and the 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.
* **Fragility and Repetitiveness of Reasoning:** The Court highlights the issue of courts using fragile and repetitive reasoning when extending detention, indicating a lack of individualized assessment.
* **Failure to Consider Alternative Measures:** The decision points out the failure to examine alternative measures to secure the applicants’ attendance at trial, which is a critical aspect of justifying pre-trial detention.
* **Related to Ukraine:** The decision highlights systemic issues within Ukraine’s justice system, particularly concerning pre-trial detention and the effectiveness of legal remedies.
* **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation amounts in similar cases, providing a benchmark for future judgments.
