CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 17 September 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 28686/11 Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych PARSHYN against Ukraine lodged on 28 April 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych Parshyn, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Kyiv. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Mas, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 4 June 2010 the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for misappropriation of property in large amounts. On 7 June 2010 the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Kyiv Golosiyivskyy District Court (the District Court) to issue an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant. The application mentioned, among other things, that the applicant was hiding from justice and failed to appear upon numerous summonses. On 8 June 2010 the applicant arrived in Kyiv for a meeting with the First Deputy Head of the Kyiv Police Department. The same day he was arrested and accused of misappropriation of property in large amounts. On 9 June 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention to ten days in order to collect additional information necessary for taking a decision on his pre-trial detention. On 18 June 2010 the same court decided to place the applicant in custody for two months. In taking that decision, the court took into account, among other things, that the applicant was accused of serious crime, that there was no evidence that the applicant could not be held in custody, that he had no permanent residence in Kyiv and that he was on the list of wanted persons. The court disregarded the arguments of the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant had a permanent place of residence and permanent work, that he came to the law-enforcement officers voluntarily, that there were no grounds that would necessitate his detention, that he had not been previously convicted, that he had positive references from his place of work, that he had been involved in charitable activates, that he had two minor children, and that detention would negatively affect his health. On 24 June 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 18 June 2010 on appeal. It noted that the first instance court had examined arguments of all parties and had established all circumstances to decide on the selection of a preventive measure. The court concluded that taking into account the applicant’s personality and gravity of crimes he was accused of, the applicant’s custody was an appropriate preventive measure and there were no grounds to quash the decision of the first instance court. On 3 August 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for two more months on the ground that he was accused of serious crimes, could evade investigation and justice as he had no permanent residence in Kyiv and could put pressure on witnesses. This decision was upheld on appeal on 12 August 2010 with the reasoning that there were no grounds for change of the preventive measure. On 6 October and 8 December 2010 and on 7 February 2011 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention respectively for up to six, eight and nine months with the standard reasoning that the measure should be upheld with regard to the applicant’s personality, seriousness of the crimes he was accused of and lack of grounds for a more lenient preventive measure. On 7 December 2010, upon request of the applicant’s lawyer, the Head of the Kyiv SIZO, in which the applicant was held, informed that the applicant had been examined by the doctor who established that the applicant had suffered from urolithiasis, chronic pyelonephritis, hydronephrosis of the right kidney, low back pain lumbar, steatosis of the liver, chronic cholecystitis and chronic gastritis. On 24 February 2011 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters extended the applicant’s detention for up to eleven months. It noted that given the applicant’s personality and seriousness of the crimes he was accused of, as well as case-file data, that he could evade investigation and justice and impede the establishment of truth in the case. The court also noted that there had been no medical data about change of state of the applicant’s health that would make his holding in custody impossible. There is no further information about the applicant’s detention and the course of criminal proceedings against him. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic authorities placed him in custody and extended his detention without sufficient and relevant grounds, despite arguments against his detention, in particular that his medical conditions were not compatible with a stay in the SIZO.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention from the moment of his arrest on 8   June 2010 onwards in breach of Article 5 § 1   (c) of the Convention, regard being had to the reasonableness of the grounds given to justify his detention?