FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF KRASYUKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 64181/09 and 9 others -see appended list)            JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 23 May 2018under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court  STRASBOURG 3 May 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Krasyukov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Síofra O’Leary, Mārtiņš Mits, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2018,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II. THE SCOPE OF APPLICATION NO. 71560/136. The Court notes that, after communication of the application, the applicant introduced new complaints concerning (i) unfairness of the appellate proceedings which resulted in the adoption of the appellate court’s ruling of 7 May 2014, and (ii) the rejection of the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance court ruling of 10 September 2014. In particular, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not notified about the appellate court’s hearing of 7 May 2014 and that it had taken place in his absence. He further invoked Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 18 of the Convention claiming that the appellate court, refusing to consider it on the merits, had rejected his appeal against the ruling of 10 September 2014 by which the first-instance court ordered the applicant to be apprehended and presented to the court for further choice of a preventive measure.7. In the Court’s view, these new complaints are not an elaboration of the applicant’s original complaints that were communicated to the Government. The Court therefore considers that it is not appropriate now to take these matters up separately (see Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005). They will be dealt with in a separate application.III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION8. The applicants complained principally about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:Article 5 § 3“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”9. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).10. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.12. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. In applications nos. 60859/10, 66440/11, 75007/11, 58383/12, 80605/12, 60962/13, 71560/13 and 77369/16, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation