FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF RUTKOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 12569/24 and 3 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 May 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rutkovskyy and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no. Date of introduction | Applicant’s name Year of birth | Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Length of detention | Specific defects | Other complaints under well‑established case‑law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] | Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2] | |
12569/24 11/04/2024 | Valeriy Valeriyovych RUTKOVSKYY 1988
| Zhegulina Anna Sergiyivna Kyiv | 19/02/2019 to 20/07/2020
16/12/2021 to 27/05/2024 | 1 year and 5 months and 2 days
2 years and 5 months and 12 days
| Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand. | Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Art. 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286‑87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015) | 2,500 | 250 | |
16732/24 31/05/2024 | Laurenc TANKO 1973
| Kanikayev Yuriy Olegovych Odesa | 09/08/2021 pending | More than 3 years and 8 months and 17 days
| Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. |
| 2,300 | 250 | |
19125/24 24/06/2024 | Oleksandr Petrovych KRYZHANOVSKYY 1962
| Myronov Oleg Anatoliyovych Kharkiv | 07/10/2022 to 03/05/2024 | 1 year and 6 months and 27 days
| Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 03/09/2014 - pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67‑79, 1 July 2021),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67‑79, 1 July 2021) | 4,700 | 250 | |
25233/24 24/06/2024 | Oleksandr Oleksiyovych MELNYK 1963
| Myronov Oleg Anatoliyovych Kharkiv | 23/06/2023 to 03/05/2024 | 10 months and 11 days
| Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 04/09/2014 - pending, 2 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67‑79, 1 July 2021),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67‑79, 1 July 2021) | 4,700 |
|
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.