FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BYCHE AND SHATOKHIN v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 26947/24 and 31147/24)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG9 October 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Byche and Shatokhin 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 18 September 2025,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.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.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 unlawful detention. In application no. 26947/24, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER 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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention6.  The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.7.  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).8.  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).9.  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.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 applicants’ detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.11.  It follows that the applicants’ complaints are admissible and that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  In application no. 26947/24, 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. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.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 sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention(unlawful detention) No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Representative’s name and locationPeriod of unlawful detentionSpecific defectsRelevant domestic decisionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   26947/2430/08/2024Ivan Ivanovych BYCHE1962 Shkorka Igor MykhaylovychUzhgorodApprehended at 2.25 p.m. on 01/05/2024; arrest record only drawn up at 11.45 p.m. on 01/05/2024, indicating that he had allegedly been arrested at 4.30 p.m., while evidence confirmed the apprehension at 2.25 p.m. on the same dayunacknowledged deprivation of liberty or delay in drawing up arrest report (Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 43611/02, §§ 113-15, 15 October 2015, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others,§§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 71-73,17 September 2020) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art. 5 § 1 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87,30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015)1,800250   31147/2426/09/2024Roman Ivanovych SHATOKHIN1979 Vasylyuk Igor MykolayovychLutsk19-20/09/2024delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70,ECHR 2015)Volyn Court of Appeal, 16/09/2024 1,800250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.