CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26269/13 Igor Mykolayovych SYDORENKO against Ukraine lodged on 13 April 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the period of the applicant’s detention which was not covered by a court decision and the alleged lack of an effective procedure to review the lawfulness of his detention during the above period. In the course of the criminal proceedings concerning embezzlement, tax evasion and money laundering, on 4 December 2012 the local court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 December 2012. On 28   December 2012 the criminal case against the applicant, together with the relevant bill of indictment, was transferred to the court for consideration on the merits. The applicant was not released upon expiration of the term of detention established by the court’s decision of 4 December 2012, and remained in detention until 19 March 2013 when the trial court again extended his detention. The applicant’s applications for release were dismissed by the local court on 3 January and 5 March 2013 on the ground that his detention was considered to be lawful. Referring to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that his detention between 30   December 2012 and 19 March 2013 was unlawful as it was not covered by a court decision. The applicant furthermore complains under Article 5 §   4 of the Convention that he did not have an effective procedure to review the lawfulness of his detention during the above period of time.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention between 30   December 2012 and 19 March 2013 compatible with the requirements of the above provision?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 §   4 of the Convention?