FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF AGEYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 39666/16 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG18 January 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Ageyev and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,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 table2.  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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. Some applicants 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 § 4 of the Convention6.  The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.7.  The Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). It is true that the provision in question does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention and for hearing applications for release. Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 39, ECHR 2006-VII).8.  In the leading cases of Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007), Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) and Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 69-70, 19 January 2012) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see 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.10.  The Court therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the instant case.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11.  In application no. 27733/21, the applicant also 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.REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 39666/16, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.13.  The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), 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 complaints concerning the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 39666/16 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of 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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits Acting Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Representative’s name and locationName of the first-instance courtDate of detention orderOther relevant datesAppellate court or court examining request for releaseDate of decisionProcedural deficiencies Other 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]   39666/1610/06/2016Yuriy Mykolayovych AGYEYEV1974 Lyapin Volodymyr YuriyovychZaporizhzhyaZaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal 21/03/2016   Applicant’s absence from detention hearings, attributable to the authorities (Lebedevv. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007; Korneykovav. Ukraine, no. 39884/05,§§ 69-73, 19 January 2012) 500250   27733/2119/05/2021Vadym Borysovych IZOTOV1969 Boychenko Yegor LeonidovychStrasbourgDzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv 13/11/2020  Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv 16/03/2021Date of the request for review of detention 15/12/2020, Date of lodging appeal 17/03/2021Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv, 03/02/2021   Kharkiv Court of Appeal, 19/04/2021Lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine,no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87,10 February 2011)Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Art. 5 § 4 of the Convention – (Tymoshenko v. Ukraine,no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87,30 April 2013; Kotiyv. Ukraine, no. 28718/09,§ 55, 5 March 2015)500250   57905/2117/11/2021Sergiy Sergiyovych ISAKOV2003 Muravska Oksana OleksandrivnaRivneBilyayivskyy Local Court of Odesa Region 22/09/2021Date of lodging appeal 27/09/2021Odesa Court of Appeal 18/11/2021Lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine,no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87,10 February 2011) 500250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.