FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 44475/08 and 3 others -see appended list)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG 6 December 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Karelskiy and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Síofra O’Leary, President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 November 2018,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.  Notice of the applications was given 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 read 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.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11.  Some 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 Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above) and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012.IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 60112/09 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning excessive length of proceedings.13.  The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Merit v. Ukraine, cited above), considers that this complaint is inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable.It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  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.”15.  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.16.  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 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. 60112/09 inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints 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; 6.  Dismisses, in application no. 44475/08, the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O’LearyActing Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention(excessive length of pre-trial detention)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameDate of birth Representative’s name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   44475/0804/09/2008Sergey Nikolayevich Karelskiy16/04/1954 Roman Yuriyovych MartynovskyyKyiv27/10/2003 to 27/04/20128 years, 6 months and 1 day Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention:from 26/03/2004 the applicant was detained either without any court order or based on a court order without setting out the grounds and/or time for the applicant’s continued detention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 70-76, 10 February 2011); Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings :from 26/09/2003 to 15/11/20129 years, 1 month and 21 days for 2 levels of jurisdiction Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention:It was not possible for the applicant to receive compensation for the unlawful detention (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012).6,800   60112/0904/11/2009Roman Olegovich Snezhko27/08/1979Vyacheslav Petrovych KolomiyetsLugansk22/03/2007 to 02/03/20091 year, 11 months and 9 days Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:The courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s petitions for release. 2,000   22045/1006/04/2010Aleksey Aleksandrovich Burkun20/08/1979  28/10/2008 to 29/12/2009  08/06/2010 to 13/08/20101 year, 2 months and 2 days  2 months and 6 days Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention:In respect of the period of detention from 28/02/2009 to 17/04/2009 not covered by any court decision Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention5,900   15760/1816/03/2018Volodymyr Viktorovych Dmytryshyn05/11/1986Mykhaylo Ivanovych SubotaUzhgorod20/05/2017 to19/06/20181 year and 1 month  700 [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.