FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF GNEZDOV v. UKRAINE(Application no. 68596/11)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG6 March 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Gnezdov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 6 February 2025,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 26 October 2011.2. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about his allegedly unlawful detention in view of the irregularities described in the appended table. He also raised other complaints under the Convention. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.3. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.THE FACTS4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention5. The applicant complained of the unlawful detention in view of the events described in the appended table. He 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 applicant’s detention in the circumstances described in the appended table was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.10. The applicant also complained under Article 3 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 and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant.

Outcome for Article 5: violation