CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26634/20 Sergiy Volodymyrovych PASHYNSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 18 June 2020 communicated on 15 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the alleged violation of his right to be presumed innocent. In 2016 the applicant, then a member of parliament, had a roadside confrontation with a certain Kh., during which he, allegedly acting in self ‑ defence, shot Kh. in the leg. Although the applicant had initially been granted victim status in ensuing criminal proceedings, in October 2019, after he had ceased to be a member of parliament, he was charged by the State Bureau of Investigation with infliction of grave bodily injuries to Kh.. On 7 October 2019 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In doing so, the court referred to the gravity of the charges, the applicant’s professional and social connections acquired in the course of his career, which could allegedly have been used to influence law-enforcement authorities, and the risk that he might abscond in view of his extensive travel history. The applicant’s detention was further extended on 29 November 2019. On 18 December 2019 the Kyiv Court of Appeal replaced the applicant’s detention with 24-hour house arrest. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending before a trial court. According to the applicant, in October-November 2019 several high ‑ ranking officials, including the President of Ukraine and the Prosecutor General, publicly commented on his case, calling him a “thug” ( «бандит» ) and stating that further criminal investigations would be instituted against him. The applicant complains under Article   5 of the Convention that his placement in detention pursuant to the court order of 7 October 2019, as well as the subsequent extension of that detention, were unlawful and unjustified, and that he did not have an effective and enforceable right to compensation in this respect. He further complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the public statements made against him by the high-level officials violated his right to be presumed innocent. Relying on Article   18 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that his Convention rights under Article 5 were restricted for the purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention, as his detention was politically motivated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty pursuant to the decision of the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv of 7   October   2019 in breach of Article   5   § 1 of the Convention, regard being had to the reasonableness of the grounds given to justify his detention (see, e.g., Khayredinov v.   Ukraine , no.   38717/04, §§   27-31, 14   October   2010)?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5   § 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, §§   84 et seq., ECHR 2016 (extracts), Ignatov v.   Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§   38-42, 15   December   2016, and Korban v.   Ukraine , no.   26744/16, §§   154-57, 4 July 2019)?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, as required by Article 5   § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Rytikov v. Ukraine , no.   52855/19, §§ 32-37, 23 May 2024)?   4.     In respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Alperin v. Ukraine , no. 41028/20, §   69, 10 October 2024)? Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, given the public statements of the high-ranking State officials in respect of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see, for example, Butkevičius v.   Lithuania , no.   48297/99, §§   49-54, ECHR   2002-II (extracts), and Korban , cited above, §§   230-32)?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see, for example, Merabishvili v.   Georgia   [GC], no.   72508/13, §§   287-317, 28   November   2017; and, mutatis mutandis , Sytnyk v. Ukraine , no. 16497/20, §§ 137-44, 24 April 2025)?