FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GRINKOV v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 15485/25)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 April 2026
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Grinkov 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 26 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. 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 13 May 2025. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr O.A. Myronov, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. 3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention

5. The applicant complained principally of the unlawful detention. He relied 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 was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 10. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicant 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