FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF SAMOYLENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 45050/10)             JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 24 October 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Samoylenko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Yonko Grozev, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 45050/10) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Oleg Nikolayevich Samoylenko (“the applicant”), on 2 August 2010.2. The applicant was granted leave to represent himself. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice.3. The applicant complained of the authorities’ failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his pre-trial detention. He further complained that the court decisions to extend his detention in April and June 2010 had been taken in his and his lawyer’s absence and that there had been no effective procedure available to him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.4. On 9 December 2015 notice of the application was given to the Government.5. On 6 October 2017 the applicant died. On 9 November 2017 his wife, Ms Tatyana Samoylenko, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. The applicant, Mr Oleg Nikolayevich Samoylenko, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962.7. On 8 February 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk regional prosecutor’s office arrested the applicant on suspicion of having engaged in fraudulent business activities.8. On 11 February 2010 the Zhovtneviy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) extended his custody to ten days with a view to carrying out a personality assessment.9. On 18 February 2010 the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. The court noted, in particular, that the applicant was unemployed, had poor character references from his place of residence and could potentially influence witnesses and abscond.10. The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed, noting, in particular, that he had no prior criminal record, that he had a permanent place of residence and a family to support, including a pregnant wife and ailing elderly parents, and that he was suffering from various health conditions which could deteriorate in detention.11. On 24 February 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the District Court’s decision. It noted, in particular, that there was no evidence that the applicant’s state of health was incompatible with detention, and that the offence he was accused of was quite serious, as it was punishable by a prison term of up to five years.12. On 6 April 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 8 June 2010. The court substantiated its decision with the need to carry out further investigation into the case and the absence of the grounds for the applicant’s release. The above decision was taken in a court hearing in the presence of the prosecutor but without the applicant or his lawyer being present; according to the applicant, they had not been summoned for the hearing.13. According to the applicant, he appealed against the decision of 6 April 2010. He also stated that on an unspecified date the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal, having held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor; the applicant and his lawyer had not been summoned. The applicant did not submit a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal.14. On 7 June 2010 the Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, again extended the applicant’s detention until 8 July 2010. The court noted that there were no grounds to release the applicant. The court hearing was held in the presence of the prosecutor. According to the applicant, he and his lawyer were not summoned to the hearing. The decision of the Court of Appeal was not subject to appeal.15. On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the trial court and the applicant was committed for trial. The trial court maintained the applicant’s detention on remand.16. On 6 September and 28 October 2010 the applicant applied to be released pending trial. These applications were dismissed by the trial court as unfounded on 2 November 2010. The trial court found, in particular, that the crimes imputed to the applicant were sufficiently serious as to potentially warrant a prison sentence of ten years or more, that he pleaded not guilty and refused to give testimonies. It also ruled, without providing any details, that the applicant might influence witnesses and thus obstruct the proceedings if he were to be released.THE LAWI. LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANT’S WIFE17.

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