FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ROLIK AND SHANDRA v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 13921/17 and 54870/21)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG18 January 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Rolik and Shandra v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,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 table2. 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 § 3 of the Convention5. The applicants complained of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.6. The Court reiterates that according to its established case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. The Court has also held that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring this person’s appearance at trial. The requirement for the judicial officer to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the detention – in addition to the persistence of reasonable suspicion – applies already at the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand, that is to say “promptly” after the arrest (see, among other authorities, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87 and 102, 5 July 2016).7. In the leading case of Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4 July 2019), 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ pre-trial detention.9. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, § 66, 20 October 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 5: violation