FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PLAVAK AND STEPANOV v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 44960/15 and 4860/17)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG20 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Plavak and Stepanov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Mārtiņš Mits, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2024,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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention5. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.6. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references).7. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references).8. The Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases set out in the appended table.9. 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 applicants’ detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.10. It follows that there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS11. In application no. 44960/15, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.12. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, 29 January 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table to the applicant in application no. 4860/17. As concerns the applicant in application no. 44960/15, the Court makes no award since he failed to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 5
Outcome: violation