FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF GANYSH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 36314/15 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG6 July 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Ganysh and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 June 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 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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under 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 § 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.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.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11.   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 Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007), Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 69-73, 19 January 2012) and Nechay v. Ukraine, (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021).REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  The applicant in application no. 24627/22 raised additional complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.13.  The Court has examined these complaints 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.14.  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.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and the remainder of application no. 24627/22 inadmissible.Holds that these applications 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 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 6 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting 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 nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionSpecific defectsHouse arrestOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   36314/1517/07/2015Vasyl Vasylyovych GANYSH1957 Rudenko Andriy SergiyovychChabany28/04/2015 to19/11/20183 years and 6 months and 23 daysfragility of the reasons employed by the courts;use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remandfrom 14/01/2016 to 19/11/2018Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - since 28/04/2015 - pending,before 3 levels of jurisdiction2,900250   1129/2224/12/2021Volodymyr Viktorovych KONDRATENKO1963   20/05/2021pendingMore than 2 years and 6 daysfragility of the reasons employed by the courts;use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint15/02/2023 –pendingArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - from 04/03/2018 – pending,before 1 level of jurisdiction, Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings2,000-   24627/2228/04/2022Leonid Yaroslavovich TESAK1982 Kolbantsev Viktor VolodymyrovychKyiv03/07/2020 to04/05/20221 year and 10 months and 2 daysuse of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – despite the applicant’s request, on 02/03/2021 he was not allowed to attend the hearing before the appellate court reviewing his detention (Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109‑15,25 October 2007, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 69‑73, 19 January 2012).1,600250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.