FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ZOLOTARYOV v. UKRAINE(Application no. 13399/19)      JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG1 April 2021This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Zolotaryov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Ivana Jelić, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 March 2021,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 February 2019.2.  The applicant was represented by Mr S.Y. Stavrov, a lawyer practising in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.5.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He 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.”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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.10.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11.  The applicant submitted other complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 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 Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine (both cited above).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  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.”13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov v. Ukraine, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.14.  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,Declares the application admissible;Holds that it discloses 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 applicant, 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 1 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   {signature_p_2} Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIXApplication raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention(excessive length of pre-trial detention)Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Representative’s name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionOther 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]13399/1927/02/2019Artem Volodymyrovych ZOLOTARYOV1976Stavrov Sergiy YuriyovychKharkiv28/04/2018 to15/06/20202 years and 1 month and 19 days Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Excessive length of consideration of the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of the Moskovskiy District Court of Kharkiv of 21/06/2019, 16/08/2019 and 03/09/2019. In particular, his appeals of 22/06/2019, 28/08/2019 and 10/09/2019 were considered by the court of appeal on 04/10/2019, 26/09/2019 and 07/10/2019 respectively. It is to be noted that by the time the appellate court examined the applicant’s appeals, the detention ordered by the above rulings had already expired and new rulings had been adopted.1,700250  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.