Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Gordyna v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the unlawful detention of the applicant, Mr. Vitaliy Mykolayovych Gordyna. The Court determined that his detention between March 7, 2022, and March 14, 2022, lacked a legal basis and involved unacknowledged deprivation of liberty or delays in drawing up an arrest report. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the lack of an effective right to compensation for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Gordyna 2,700 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **Procedure:** The case originated from an application lodged against Ukraine on March 18, 2024.
\n * **Facts:** The applicant complained of unlawful detention and raised other complaints under the Convention.
\n * **Law:** The Court focused on Article 5 \u00a7 1 regarding the right to liberty and security, emphasizing that any deprivation of liberty must comply with national law and protect against arbitrariness.
\n * **Findings:** The Court found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1, noting that the applicant\u2019s detention was not in accordance with the Convention. It also identified violations related to the length of pre-trial detention and the lack of compensation for these violations, referencing established case-law.
\n * **Article 41:** The Court awarded compensation of 2,700 euros for damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n
* **Unlawful Detention (Article 5 \u00a7 1):** The decision underscores that detention must have a clear legal basis and adhere to procedural rules to prevent arbitrariness. The Court highlighted specific defects in Mr. Gordyna’s detention, such as the lack of legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision and the unacknowledged deprivation of liberty.
\n * **Excessive Length of Pre-Trial Detention (Article 5 \u00a7 3):** The Court found that the pre-trial detention was excessively long and that the authorities failed to adequately assess the applicant’s personal situation, consider alternative measures of restraint, and conduct the proceedings with due diligence.
\n * **Right to Compensation (Article 5 \u00a7 5):** The decision points out the absence of an effective right to compensation in the domestic legal system for violations of Article 5 \u00a7 3, reinforcing the need for accessible and adequate remedies for individuals whose rights have been violated.<\/p>\n
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it highlights systemic issues related to unlawful detention, excessive pre-trial detention, and the lack of effective remedies for these violations. It serves as a reminder of the need for reforms in the criminal justice system to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n