CASE OF PODVEZKO v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano
4. The applicant was born in 1976. 5. On 29 December 2009 a police investigator initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and charged him with fraudulent appropriation of property. On the same day the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons. 6. On 27 April 2010 the applicant was arrested and informed of the charges. 7. On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by a court. 8. On 25 June 2010 the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to abscond. 9. In February 2011 the case was referred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) for trial. 10. On 4 April 2011 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case. Following the request of the prosecutor, it ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be changed and that the applicant should be placed in pre-trial detention. The court, paying regard to the fact that the applicant denied his guilt, considered that the applicant could influence witnesses, conceal or remove traces and evidence of the crime. It stated that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and his actual place of residence did not coincide with his registered address. It therefore concluded that the applicant could behave negatively and his isolation was necessary. The court noted that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company. 11. On a number of occasions during the trial the applicant requested the District Court to change the preventive measure in his respect and release him. 12. On 5 July, 19 August, 23 November 2011 and 17 January 2012 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests maintaining the impugned preventive measure. The court referred to its decision of 4 April 2011 and repeated that the applicant’s actual and registered addresses did not coincide, he was charged with a serious crime, and that there were grounds to believe that the applicant could behave negatively, if released. The court also repeated that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company. The court then found that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure for health reasons or to apply bail; furthermore, the applicant showed no remorse and had refused to admit his guilt. 13. On 30 January 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty of fraudulent appropriation of property and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property. 14. The Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 30 January 2012 on 9 April 2013 and 6 February 2014 respectively.