{"id":4510,"date":"2025-01-24T10:01:19","date_gmt":"2025-01-24T08:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/01\/case-of-bagatyy-v-ukraine\/"},"modified":"2025-01-24T10:01:19","modified_gmt":"2025-01-24T08:01:19","slug":"case-of-bagatyy-v-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/01\/case-of-bagatyy-v-ukraine\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BAGATYY v. UKRAINE"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Bagatyy v. Ukraine concerning the unlawful detention of the applicant. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention due to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant&#8217;s pre-trial detention during the period from August 2023 to June 2024.The decision is structured around three main components: the procedural aspects, the assessment of the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3, and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The Court referred to its established case-law, particularly the Buzadji v. Moldova and Korban v. Ukraine cases, to support its findings.The key provisions of the judgment include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Court emphasized that the persistence of reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient to justify continued detention after a certain period<\/li>\n<li>National authorities must provide relevant and sufficient reasons for detention from the very first decision ordering detention on remand<\/li>\n<li>Courts are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring the person&#8217;s appearance at trial<\/li>\n<li>The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros in non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/?i=001-240232\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Bagatyy v. Ukraine concerning the unlawful detention of the applicant. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention due to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant&#8217;s pre-trial detention during the period from&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}