CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 March 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 72678/16 Oleksandr Petrovych SERGIYENKO against Ukraine lodged on 18 November 2016 communicated on 6 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in the course of his arrest and the lengthy examination of his appeal against the court’s decision ordering his detention. The applicant is co-accused within the framework of a large-scale criminal investigation into embezzlement and forgery committed in a group. On 17   June 2016 he was arrested and subsequently detained by the courts in the context of the above investigation. On 26 September 2016, the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, decided to replace the applicant’s detention with 24-hour house arrest. In the morning of 27 September 2016, when the applicant left the pre-trial detention facility, he was arrested by the law enforcement officers on suspicion of money laundering, and on 29 September 2016 the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered his detention. The applicant’s appeal against that decision, lodged on 4 October 2016, was examined by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal on 2 November 2016. In the course of his arrest, on 27 September 2016, the applicant sustained contusion of chest, hands and nose; those injuries were registered upon his placement in the Kyiv temporary detention facility. On 28 September 2016 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the investigating authority dealing with the criminal case against the applicant to conduct an inquiry into his alleged ill-treatment. On 11 October 2016 the applicant submitted a formal complaint to the Kyiv Local Prosecutor’s Office about his ill-treatment. According to him, no inquiry or investigation into the alleged ill-treatment was made. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was ill-treated by the law enforcement officers in the course of his arrest and there was no effective investigation into the above incident. He furthermore complains under Articles 5 § 4 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the examination of his appeal against the decision of the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv of 29 September 2016 ordering his detention was too long. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§   169-182, 15 May 2012), was the investigation of the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment complaints by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? 3.     Did the proceedings concerning the examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv of 29   September 2016 comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in particular with that of speediness (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, § 86, 10 February 2011)?