FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF MARIYANCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 14490/07 and 2 others -see appended list)             JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 17 January 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Mariyanchuk 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 13 December 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.  THE LOCUS STANDI OF MS Liliya Vladislavovna Kurtseva6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 8922/11, the Court notes that the applicant died on 25 April 2014, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s daughter, Ms Liliya Vladislavovna Kurtseva, has requested to pursue the application on her father’s behalf. The Government objected. Given that the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse the request of the applicant’s daughter (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 31-35, 8 October 2015; and Vaščenkovs v. Latvia, no. 30795/12, §§ 25-30, 15 December 2016). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.III.  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 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.”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.IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  The applicants in applications nos. 14490/07 and 12478/13 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 Ignatov v. Ukraine (cited above).V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13.  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.”14.  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. It rejects the additional claims for just satisfaction submitted by the applicant in application no. 14490/07.15.  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.  Decides that Ms Kurtseva, the daughter of the applicant in application no. 8922/11, has locus standi in the proceedings; 3.  Declares the applications admissible; 4.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 5.  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); 6.  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. 7.  Dismisses, in application no. 14490/07, the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2019, 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]   14490/0706/03/2007Vasyl Petrovych Mariyanchuk09/07/1967Andriy Anatoliyovych KristenkoKharkiv28/02/2000 to24/03/201414 years and 25 days Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings:26/06/1999 to 26/04/20163 levels of jurisdiction11,000   8922/1122/01/2011Vladislav Sergeyevich Kurtsev27/03/1971 The applicant died on 25/04/2014. His daughter, Liliya Vladislavovna Kurtseva, has the quality of heir.Valeriy Petrovych KononenkoKharkiv21/01/2010 to25/10/20111 year, 9 months and 5 days  1,200   12478/1313/02/2013Dmitriy Yuryevich Petrunek27/01/1982Lyudmila Mikhaylovna KichuzhinetsKyiv12/04/2009 to07/05/20145 years and 26 days Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: On 26/10/2010 the Golosiyivskyy District Court while transferring the criminal case against the applicant to the Pecherskyy Disrtict Court of Kyiv under the jurisdiction rules, extended the applicant’s detention without establishing any time limits or providing reasoning.  Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:The domestic courts failed to duly review the applicant’s requests for release.5,900 [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.