FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF PRIGARIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 8660/09 and 6 others -see appended list)       JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 30 November 2017    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Prigarin and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Síofra O’Leary, Mārtiņš Mits, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017,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 applications were communicated 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.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads 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.”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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS11.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above).IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.14.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,1.  Decides to join the applications; 2.  Declares the applications admissible; 3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 5.  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 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt André PotockiActing Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention(excessive length of pre-trial detention)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant nameDate of birthRepresentative name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant(in euros)[1]   8660/0906/01/2009Oleg Vladimirovich Prigarin26/12/1966  11/04/2006 to 17/03/2008 21/05/2010 to 04/08/20111 year, 11 months and 7 days 1 year, 2 months and 15 days 1,900   76687/1110/10/2011Volodymyr Georgiyovych Ostrovskyy16/03/1980  06/08/2009 to 29/07/20133 years, 11 months and 24 days Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - While the case against the applicant was considered by the court of first instance it did not render any decisions as to the applicant’s continued detention.5,900   74522/1216/11/2012Valentyn Mykolayovych Burlaka01/01/1965  10/02/2010 to 22/05/20122 years, 3 months and 13 days Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - From 10/04/2010 till 27/04/2010 the applicant was detained without court order.5,900   27173/1308/04/2013Igor Yuriyovych Babunych08/02/1971  05/04/2011 to 20/03/20142 years, 11 months and 16 days Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 01/03/2011 to 16/09/2014, 3 years, 6 months and 16 days, 1 level of jurisdiction2,300   42811/1322/06/2013Sergiy Ivanovych Zaikin05/02/1969Pavlo Mykolayovych SobynaOkhtyrka04/04/2012 to 11/07/20131 year, 3 months and 8 days Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis. The applicant complains about unlawfulness of his detention from 20 December 2012 till April 2013.5,900   51238/1322/07/2013Viktor Anatolyevich Popik22/05/1964  13/05/2010 to 02/03/2011 01/07/2011 to 23/03/2012 27/07/2012 to 23/07/20139 months and 18 days 8 months and 23 days 11 months and 27 daysArt. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no possibility to apply for compensation in respect of a violation of Art. 5-31,600   8390/1409/03/2014Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Lebedev04/02/1971  14/01/2011 to 20/10/2014 3 years, 9 months and 7 days Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of judicial review of the continued detention (reiterated standard reasoning)2,400  [1]  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.