FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF BARSKYY v. UKRAINE(Application no. 62947/16)        JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 28 September 2017      This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Barskyy v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Nona Tsotsoria, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 7 September 2017,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 October 2016.2. The application was communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS3. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads 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.”6. 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).7. In the leading case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.8. 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.9. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION10.

Outcome for Article 5: violation