FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SHUFRYCH v. UKRAINE(Application no. 1143/24)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG10 July 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shufrych v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Diana Sârcu, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 19 June 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 3 January 2024.2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. S. Bunyak, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.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 § 4 of the Convention5. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.6. The Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). It is true that the provision in question does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention and for hearing applications for release. Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 39, ECHR 2006-VII).7. In the leading case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table).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.9.

Outcome for Article 5: violation