HomeCategoryЄвропейський суд з прав людини

In the case of Gerashchenko and others v. Ukraine (no. 9219/20 and others), Artem Fedosin represented two clients who have been proving their innocence in Ukrainian courts for a long time.

In this case, the ECHR noted that

the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and taking into account the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities, and the importance of the subject matter of the dispute for the applicants. …in the present case the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a ‘reasonable time’. The Court also notes that the applicants did not have an effective remedy for these complaints

One year has passed since the application was submitted to the ECHR and the judgement was delivered, and each of the clients has received just satisfaction.

In the case of Kompaniyets and others v. Ukraine (application no. 70622/12 and others), Artem Fedosin represented the Client, who had been proving his innocence in Ukrainian courts for a long time. In this case, the ECHR noted that

“the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and taking into account the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities, and the importance of the subject matter of the dispute for the applicants. …in the present case the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a ‘reasonable time’. The Court also notes that the applicants did not have an effective remedy for these complaints

One year has passed since the application was submitted to the ECHR and the judgement was delivered, and the Client has received just satisfaction.

In the case of Kirtok v. Ukraine (applications no. 26193/20 and no. 9489/21) Artem Fedosin represented the Client, who was detained for a long time in connection with the murder charge. In this case, the ECHR noted that:

The Court observes that the general principles on the right to trial within a reasonable time or release during the proceedings guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention,…. The Court does not see any facts or arguments which could persuade it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of the complaints. …The Court considers that in the present case the length of the applicant’s detention during the pre-trial investigation was excessive.

Also in this case, the ECHR found a violation of the reasonable time limit for consideration of criminal proceedings and the lack of protection against such red tape.

As a result, the Client’s rights were restored and he received just satisfaction.

In the case of Kyslitskiy and others v. Ukraine (application no. 44065/15 and others), Artem Fedosin represented the Client, against whom criminal proceedings have been ongoing for a long time. In this case, the ECHR noted that

“the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and taking into account the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities, and the importance of the subject matter of the dispute for the applicants. …in the present case the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a ‘reasonable time’. The Court also notes that the applicants did not have an effective remedy for these complaints

Less than one year has passed since the application was submitted to the ECHR and the judgement was delivered, and the client has received just satisfaction.

In the case of Bevz and others v. Ukraine (application no. 17955/13 and others) Artem Fedosin represented the Client, whose detention was repeatedly and unreasonably extended and criminal proceedings were conducted for a long time.

In this case, the ECHR noted that:

…. The Court notes that the decisions to extend the applicants’ detention were set out in general terms and contained repetitive phrases. It did not appear from them that the courts had properly assessed the facts as to whether such a measure of restraint was necessary in the circumstances of each relevant stage of the proceedings. … without assessing the specific facts or considering the possibility of applying other preventive measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention, and essentially constantly referring to the gravity of the charges, the authorities extended the applicants’ detention during the proceedings on grounds which could not be considered “sufficient” or “appropriate” to justify its duration.

In the case of Egorov and Others v. Ukraine (application no. 54337/19 and others), Artem Fedosin represented the Client, whose detention was repeatedly and unreasonably extended and criminal proceedings were conducted for a long time.

In this case, the ECHR noted that:

The Court observes that the general principles concerning the right to trial within a reasonable time or release during the proceedings guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention have been set out in a number of its previous judgments. … in the present case, the duration of the applicants’ detention in custody during the criminal proceedings was excessive.

Also in this case, the ECHR found a violation of the reasonable time limit for consideration of criminal proceedings.

As a result, the Client’s rights were restored and he received just satisfaction.