Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 4048/03
by Anton Valentinovich ZOZULYA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anton Valentinovich Zozulya, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1978 and is currently detained.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 August 1998 according to the applicant (on 20 August 1998 according to the documents) the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder.
On 25 August 1998 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted suicide.
On 26 August 1998 he confessed that he and two other suspects killed Mr T.
On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Kyiv City Court (hereinafter – the City Court), acting as a first instance court.
On 1 July 1999 the City Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and robbery; and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
On 9 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation, as there were substantial discrepancies in evidence, which could not be remedied during the trial. In its decision the Supreme Court did not make any ruling in respect of the applicant’s further detention.
On 3 March 2000 the Plenum of the Supreme Court rejected the protest, lodged by the General Prosecutor of Ukraine against this decision.
On an unspecified date the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the City Court.
On 17 August 2000 the City Court remitted the case to the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation, as the investigative authorities failed to follow recommendations of the Supreme Court, set in its ruling of 9 December 1999. It extended the applicant’s detention on remand without giving any reason.
On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Court upheld this ruling.
On an unspecified date the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the City Court.
On 25 April 2001 the City Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and robbery; and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The Court rejected the applicant’s complaint that he had been ill-treated while in detention on remand and forced to incriminate himself as unsubstantiated.
On 25 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.
B. Relevant domestic law
The texts of Article 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (terms of pre-trial investigation) and Article 281 (remittal of a case for additional investigation) are summarised in the judgment Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, judgment of 30 March 2004, Relevant domestic law and practice). The text of Article 156 of the Code (periods of detention during an investigation) is summarised in the judgment Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, judgment of 5 April 2005, § 53).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that he had not received any medical treatment whilst in detention, whereas he had required some as a drug addict.
He complained that, during his pre-trial detention, he had been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3, as a result of which he had tried to commit suicide.
The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) that his detention had not been “lawful” as it had not been duly authorised. He also complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He also complained that he had not been provided with enough time to study his case-file before the first trial and that he had not been able to contact with his lawyer before the first interrogation and that his motions to appoint additional forensic examinations had been rejected.
He finally complained under Article 13 that his mother had not been appointed as his representative.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that his detention on remand had been unlawful. He also complained about the length of his detention on remand. He invoked Article 5 § 1 (c) and, in substance, Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read, as far as relevant, as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
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.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complained that the criminal proceedings lasted unreasonably long. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, as far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
3. The applicant further complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of lack of any medical treatment and ill-treatment during his pre-trial detention. He also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had not been provided with enough time to study his case-file before the first trial, that he had not been able to contact with his lawyer before the first interrogation, that his motions to appoint additional expertises had been rejected and that his mother had not been appointed as his representative.
In the light of all the material in its possession, and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the unlawfulness and excessive length of the pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President