FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 56387/11 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG14 November 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Trapeznikov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Kateřina Šimáčková, President, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Artūrs Kučs, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2024,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. 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 § 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 there been a violation of that Convention provision.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.   In applications nos. 56387/11 and 36842/17, 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 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 and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant in application no. 56387/11.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;Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 56387/11.Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Kateřina Šimáčková 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 birthRepresentative’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]   56387/1127/08/2011Igor Andriyovych TRAPEZNIKOV1972 Ponomaryov Sergiy SergiyovychBelogorsk23/05/2001 to 26/05/2011;the applicant’s detention without court order in excess of the seventy-two hours’ time-limit allowed by the law (from 1.00 p.m. of 23/05/2011 to 2.30 p.m. of 26/05/2011) no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020) (Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, §§ 22‑28, 16 April 2015)arrest report of 23/05/2001Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - from 23/05/2011 to 20/09/2011 (Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4 July 2019); Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015) 2,600250   36842/1717/05/2017Roman Mykhaylovych NASIROV1979 Kozachenko Viktoriya IvanivnaKyiv02/03/2017 to 05/03/2017no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88‑89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020)arrest report of 02/03/2017Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the court hearing of 05/03/2017 the applicant was placed in a cage while lying on a medical stretcher (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, 17 July 2014).2,350250   17795/2321/04/2023Borys Rafayilovych KAUFMAN1973 Lysak Oleksandr MykolayovychKyiv05/12/2022 to07/12/2022no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88‑89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83‑85, 17 September 2020)arrest report of 05/12/2022; On 17/01/2023 the Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court issued the final decision, finding it lawful and substantiated 1,800250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.