ECtHR case update
| DOI | 10.1177/2032284418777571 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Author | Ben Wild |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Updates |
Updates
ECtHR case update:
January to March 2018
Ben Wild
Article 5
Korniychuk v. Ukraine (application no. 10042/11)
The applicant, Yevgen Korniychuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1966 and lives in
Kyiv. The case concerned his complaint about his arrest and ensuing detention for 54 days during
an investigation into abuse of office.
In February 2009, Mr Korniychuk, Deputy Ministe r of Justice at the time, sent a letter to
Naftogaz Ukrainy, a State-owned gas company, telling it that it could extend a contract with a
law firm without a bidding procedure. The prosecuting authorities later found that he had bypassed
the Ministry of Justice in signing the letter and that the extension of the contract had caused
considerable losses to the State budget. Mr Korniychuk was charged with exceeding his powers
leading to serious consequences. He was arrested on 22 December 2010 and then held in temporary
detention from 24 to 30 December 2010. After this, he was placed in pretrial detention on the
grounds that he might abscond or interfere with witnesses. All his appeals against his arrest and
detention were dismissed until 15 February 2011, when the investigator released him under an
obligation not to abscond. He was amnestied in December 2011.
Mr Korniychuk made a number of complaints under, in particular, Article 5 sections 1 and 3
(right to liberty and security/entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial). He alleged in particular that his arrest – without a judicial warrant – and subsequent detention
had been unlawful and arbitrary and that his pretrial detention from 30 December 2010 to 15
February 2011 had not been sufficiently justified.
Outcome
Violation of Article 5 section 1 – on account of Mr Korniychuk’s deprivation of liberty
without a judicial warrant from 22 to 24 December 2010.
Violation of Article 5 section 1 – on account of Mr Korniychuk’s temporary detention from
24 to 30 December 2010.
Violation of Article 5 section 3.
Just satisfaction: 6500 euros (EUR; non-pecuniary damage).
Akimenkov and Others v. Russia (application nos. 2613/13 and 50041/14)
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, following a political demonstration, there had
been no good reason for his arrest or pretrial detention and that various aspects of his detention had
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 9(2) 265–284
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2032284418777571
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
amounted to degrading treatment. The applicant, Vladimir Akimenkov, is a Russian national who
was born in 1987 and lives in Moscow.
On 6 May 2012, he attended a protest against allegedly rigged presidential elections. After a
peaceful march, a meeting began at Bolotnaya Square where clashes broke out between the
demonstrators and the police. The following month the applicant was arrested and charged with
taking part in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against the police. He
requested bail but detention was repeatedly extended until December 2013 when he was finally
released under the new Amnesty Act.
The applicant complained in particular under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading
treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, notably about the alleged poor condi-
tions in the various remand prisons, en route to court and at the court itself, and about a lack of
medical assistance for a serious eye condition. He further complained under Article 5 (right to
liberty and security) that there had been neither good reason for his extended pretrial detention nor
any reason to suspect that he had committed a criminal offence.
Outcome
No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the conditions of detention in the remand prisons.
No violation of Article 3 – as regards the alleged lack of medical assistance.
Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in respect of the conditions of
transfer to and from court.
Violation of Article 3 – on account of the confinement in a glass cabin in hearing room no.
338 at the Moscow City Court.
No violation of Article 3 – on account of the confinement in a glass cabin in hearing room no.
635 at the Moscow City Court.
Violation of Article 5 section 3.
Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage).
Butkevich v. Russia (application no. 5865/07)
The case concerned a journalist’s arrest during an ‘anti-globalization’ protest on 16 July 2006 in St
Petersburg.
Taken to a local police station, he had administrative offence proceedings brought against him
for disobeying a lawful order of the police. The case was examined in an expedited procedure, and
he was heard by a judge and convicted as charged the same evening. He was sentenced to 3 days’
detention. On 18 July 2006, the appeal court reduced this sentence to 2 days and ordered his
release, with immediate effect.
The Court found in particular that neither the domestic courts nor the Russian Government had
justified Mr Butkevich’s arrest or a 6-h delay in releasing him on 18 July 2006. Furthermore, the
proceedings in which he had been convicted were in breach of the requirement of objective
impartiality on account of the lack of the prosecuting party at the court hearing on his case. Those
proceedings were also unfair because the police officers who had arrested him and produced the
pretrial reports on which his conviction had been based were not questioned during that hearing.
Lastly, the Court found that the domestic decisions had not weighed in the balance Mr Butkevich’s
right to freedom of expression against the prevention of disorder, ignoring his argument that he had
been acting as a journalist and not examining adequately whether the demonstration had been
peaceful or not.
266 New Journal of European Criminal Law 9(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial