FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ZALEVSKYY AND VITKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 35093/19 and 2304/21)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG6 October 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Zalevskyy and Vitkovskyy v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 24 February 2022,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 applicants were represented by Mr O.A. Ignatov.3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.5.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6.  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 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7.  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.”8.  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).9.  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.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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  The applicants 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 Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) and Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744/16, § 201, 4 July 2019).REMAINING COMPLAINTS13.  In application no. 2304/21 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.14.  The Court has examined this complaint 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, it does 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 CONVENTION15.  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.”16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above, § 57), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.17.  The Court further 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,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 2304/21 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;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);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 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov Acting 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’s nameYear of birthPeriod of detentionLength of detentionSpecific defectsHouse arrestOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]   35093/1920/06/2019Veniamin Viktorovych ZALEVSKYY1992 03/03/2015 to15/07/2020 24/06/2021pending5 years and 4 months and 13 days More than 7 months and 4 daysfailure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;fragility of the reasons employed by the courtsround-the-clock house arrest since 12/10/2021 Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - see, for example, Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 201, 4 July 2019 with further references, Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - pending since 05/11/2014 before 2 levels of jurisdiction.3,900   2304/2112/12/2020Vikentiy Bronislavovych VITKOVSKYY1980 31/01/2019pendingMore than 2 years and 11 months and 28 daysuse of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - see, for example, Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 201, 4 July 2019 with further references.2,300 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.