FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MARTYROSYAN v. UKRAINE(Application no. 10838/24)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG13 February 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Martyrosyan 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 23 January 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 22 March 2024.2. The applicant was represented by Ms K.O. Chuyeva, a lawyer practising in Odesa.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.5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.7. 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).8. 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.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 length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 5: violation