CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s55FDF252 { width:190.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 33641/17 Andriy Oleksandrovych SUKHYNIN against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   April   2018 as a committee composed of:   André Potocki, President,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 April 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Andriy Oleksandrovych Sukhynin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1977 and is detained in Kharkiv. He was represented before the Court by Ms O.O. Richko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was not excessive. In particular, the Court notes the following. The applicant, a Kramatorsk town prosecutor at the material time, was arrested on 6 April 2015. According to investigative authorities the applicant, in complicity with his subordinates and a local police unit supposed to be supervised by him, organized and was maintaining during 2014-2015 a system of extortion of bribes on a regular (monthly) basis from entrepreneurs of Kramatorsk (Donetsk Region). On 21 December 2016 the applicant was sentenced to 8   years’ imprisonment and confiscation of property. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was reviewed and extended every two months due to the risks of the applicant absconding and obstructing the investigation. The domestic courts based their decisions on the following grounds: the systematic character of the applicant’s unlawful activity and his close ties with law-enforcement agents; the severity of the crime and possible punishment; the risk of obstructing the investigation; the applicant’s continuing contacts with his former colleagues and subordinates with a view to influencing the investigation; the risk of the applicant fleeing to the so called “DNR” (territory being out of the reach of Ukrainian law-enforcement bodies) where he had property and ties; the complexity of the case which required time; the improper procedural behaviour of the defence which, in the courts’ opinion, was aimed at protracting the consideration of the case. In the instant case the courts were relying on facts which were convincingly showing that the applicant might try to obstruct the investigation or abscond. The said reasoning, even though it was repeated throughout the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, remained convincing in the circumstances. Moreover, in the course of the proceedings the courts invoked additional arguments, namely, facts showing that the applicant might be trying to conceal his property in order to avoid its confiscation and to influence witnesses (some witnesses had informed the courts about threats received from unknown individuals before the hearings). The applicant’s procedural behaviour was also taken into account. Furthermore, the courts were paying sufficient attention to the expediency of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court finds that the period of the applicant’s detention of one year and almost nine months does not appear, in the circumstances, to be excessive (see Titarenko v. Ukraine , no. 31720/02, §§ 72-73, 20   September 2012; Sopin v.   Russia , no. 57319/10, §§ 38, 43-45, 18   December 2012; and Nenad Kovačević v. Croatia , no. 38415/13, §§ 59, 65-69, 24 November 2015). In view of the above, the Court concludes that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 May 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   André Potocki Acting Deputy Registrar   President