FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF MARIYANCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 14490/07 and 2 others -see appended list)             JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 17 January 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Mariyanchuk and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Síofra O’Leary, President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2018,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 table.2. Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II. THE LOCUS STANDI OF MS Liliya Vladislavovna Kurtseva6. As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 8922/11, the Court notes that the applicant died on 25 April 2014, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s daughter, Ms Liliya Vladislavovna Kurtseva, has requested to pursue the application on her father’s behalf. The Government objected. Given that the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse the request of the applicant’s daughter (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 31-35, 8 October 2015; and Vaščenkovs v. Latvia, no. 30795/12, §§ 25-30, 15 December 2016). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read 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.”8. 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).9. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.10. 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.11. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. The applicants in applications nos. 14490/07 and 12478/13 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground.

Outcome for Article 5: violation