Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 October 2019
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 16349/17) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Ukrainian national, Ms Nelya Igorivna Shtepa (“the applicant”), on
17 February 2017.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr O.V. Tananakin, a lawyer
practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna, from the Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicant complained, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that
her pre-trial detention had been lengthy and unjustified. She further
complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the criminal
proceedings against her had been unreasonably long.
4. On 17 October 2017 the Court rejected the applicant’s request for an
interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to provide her with
necessary medical treatment in detention. On 20 April 2018 the application
was granted priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
5. On 11 September 2018 notice of the application was given to the
Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
14. The criminal case against the applicant is currently pending before
the trial court.
15. According to the applicant, in the course of the trial, nineteen of the
judges who heard her case withdrew, were disqualified or were dismissed,
took sick or paternity leave under pressure from the prosecution, or quit
their career entirely. As a result, the trial was restarted four times.
16. In the course of the trial, the court held 69 hearings in total. On 32
occasions the court dealt with the merits of the case (hearing the parties’
submissions and the witness testimony, and examined the evidence).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
17. The applicant complained that the decisions of the domestic courts
ordering her pre-trial detention had been arbitrary and lacked reasoning. She
further complained that her detention had been unreasonably long. She
relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“... 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other
officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and shall be entitled to trial
within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by
guarantees to appear for trial ...”
A. Admissibility
18. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be
declared admissible.
B. Merits
19. The applicant submitted that her detention had been based solely on
the seriousness of the crimes of which she stood accused. She further stated
that the courts had failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for her
detention, which had been unreasonably long, and that there had been no
risk of her absconding from justice.
20. The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention had been
under the permanent supervision of the courts, which had provided reasoned
decisions for that measure. They further maintained that the applicant’s
detention had been justified by the risk of her absconding from justice.
21. The applicable general principles are set out in Buzadji
v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91 and 102, 5 July
2016).
4 SHTEPA v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT
22. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes
that the applicant was held in detention within the meaning of Article 5
§ 1 (c) of the Convention from 13 July 2014 to 20 September 2017. Her
pre-trial detention therefore lasted for around three years and three months.
23. The Court observes that, contrary to the Government’s argument, the
District Court’s decision of 13 July 2014 did not contain clear and precise
reasons for the applicant’s detention but simply referred to the investigator’s
submissions, without any examination of the plausibility of the grounds
invoked by the latter (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above).
24. The Court further observes that the seriousness of the charges
against the applicant and the risk of her absconding or interfering with the
investigation were mentioned in the initial order for her detention (ibid.).
However, that reasoning did not evolve with the passage of time and
continued to consist of the same formulaic and stereotypical conclusions
(see paragraph 12 above). Moreover, when committing the applicant for
trial on 13 February 2015, the District Court maintained the applicant’s
detention but without giving any reasons whatsoever for its decision (see
paragraph 11 above).
25. The Court particularly notes that, in the present case, the domestic
courts repeatedly justified the applicant’s further detention by the absence of
reasons to release her, while Article 5 § 3 of the Convention implies an
opposite approach and requires the national authorities to indicate grounds
for the person’s continuing detention (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June
1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
26. The Court further observes that the applicant’s absence from her
registered address in Slovyansk and her potential influence on a victim and
witnesses in her capacity as former city mayor (see paragraph 9 above) were
mentioned by the domestic court as justification for her detention. At the
same time, these elements, while they seem to remain unchanged according
to the case file materials (see paragraphs 9 and 13 above), were relied upon
by the domestic court to dismiss, on 20 September 2017, the prosecution’s
request for an extension of the applicant’s uninterrupted detention. In the
absence of any explanation in the relevant judicial decision and the
Government’s observations, it remains unclear how factors which were
interpreted in her favour in 2017 had been initially used against the
applicant in 2014.
27. The Court has often found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention in cases against Ukraine on the basis that, even for lengthy
periods of detention, the domestic courts referred to the same set of grounds,
if there were any, throughout the period of the applicant’s detention (see, for
example, Komarova v. Ukraine, no. 13371/06, §§ 77-81, 16 May 2013).
28. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to
address specific facts or consider alternatives to pre-trial detention and by
relying essentially and routinely on the seriousness of the charges, the
SHTEPA v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 5
30. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings
in her case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.
She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a
... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
31. The Court notes that the above complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
32. The applicant reiterated her initial submission that the length of the
criminal proceedings in her case had been in breach of the “reasonable
time” requirement.
33. The Government disputed that submission, arguing that the case had
been complex. They further stated that the proceedings had been delayed
due to the conduct of the applicant’s defence lawyers, who had lodged
numerous appeals and requests for the replacement of the trial court judges.
Overall, in their view, the court hearings had been scheduled with
reasonable intervals and there were no delays which could be attributed to
the State.
34. In the present case, the proceedings started on 12 July 2014, when a
criminal investigation for infringement of State sovereignty and
inviolability was instituted in respect of the applicant (see paragraph 8
above), and appear to be currently pending before the trial court. They have
thus lasted for about five years and two months at one level of jurisdiction.
35. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case
and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the
conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake
for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier
6 SHTEPA v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and
Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
36. In Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004) the Court found
a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
37. The Court further reiterates that it is the role of the domestic courts
to manage their proceedings so that they are expeditious and effective (see,
Silin v. Ukraine, no. 23926/02, § 34, 13 July 2006). However, in the Court’s
opinion the national court did not act with due diligence in the present case.
In particular, according to the information provided by the Government, the
hearings were often scheduled with intervals of three to four weeks and on
six occasions the hearings were postponed owing to the failure of witnesses
to appear before the court. The witnesses’ failures resulted in the
postponement of the hearings for three and a half months in total. The
Government did not state whether any measures had been taken in order to
shorten the intervals between the hearings or discipline the absent witnesses.
38. As regards the judges’ repeated withdrawals from the case, the Court
notes that each withdrawal resulted in the trial being restarted from the very
beginning (see paragraph 15 above). The total delay in the proceedings was
therefore more than seven months. In this connection, having no doubt
about the right of any judge to withdraw from a case, the Court reiterates
that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States the
duty to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet
the requirement to hear cases within a reasonable time (see, among many
other authorities, Duclos v. France, 17 December 1996, § 55 in fine,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).
39. Having examined all the material submitted to it and in the light of
its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the
length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
40. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, this part
of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
A. Damage
47. The applicant also claimed EUR 21,450 for the costs and expenses
incurred both before the domestic courts and before the Court.
48. The Government considered the amount claimed unsubstantiated.
49. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown
that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as
to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
50. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.
8 SHTEPA v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,600 (two thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;