CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s59947BC4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s56EAFD9F { width:153.43pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 60693/09 Aleksey Igorevich SOKOLOV against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   September 2019 as a Committee composed of:   André Potocki, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Yonko Grozev, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6   November 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr Sedykh, a lawyer practising in Luhansk, Ukraine. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 of the Convention. THE LAW Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention), Article 5 § 1 (c) (unlawful deprivation of liberty) and Article 5 § 4 (courts’ failure to provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s petitions for release) Having examined all the material before it, the Court observes that the Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Luhansk convicted the applicant on   2   March   2009; from that date on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention cease to apply, as the person is detained “after conviction by a   competent court” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see, mutatis mutandis , Borisenko v. Ukraine , no.   25725/02, §§   35-44, 12   January   2012, and mutatis mutandis , Ustyantsev v. Ukraine , no.   3299/05, §§   73-84, 12   January   2012). The Court further notes that the applicant introduced his application on   6   November   2009, more than six months later. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints were lodged out of time for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 October 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   André Potocki   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Period of detention Length of detention Other complaints under well-established case-law 60693/09 06/11/2009 Aleksey Igorevich Sokolov 04/12/1976 22/03/2007 to 02/05/2009 2 years, 1 month and 11 days   Art. 5 (1) [c] - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: Unjustified arrest of the applicant on 22 March 2007 and the decision of the Zhovtnevyy Court of 30 March 2007 to extend his detention in police custody to ten days in order to obtain further information on his character ( Khayredinov v. Ukraine , no. 38717/04, §§ 27-31, 14 October 2010, and Barilo v. Ukraine , no. 9607/06, §§ 92-98, 16 May 2013);   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention: the courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s petitions for release.