FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 27052/09 and 11 others -see appended list)        JUDGMENT        STRASBOURG 28 June 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Bondarenko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Yonko Grozev, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 7 June 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.  The applications were communicated 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) and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above).IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In applications nos. 78459/12 and 76741/13, the applicants raised other complaints respectively under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, and under Article 5 of the Convention.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, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), considers that these complaints are inadmissible since the length of the proceedings in application no. 78459/12 was not excessive or unreasonable. In application no. 76741/13, the complaints concerning the absence of grounds for the applicant’s detention and unlawfulness of his detention during the period from 24 to 27 July 2012 were submitted to the Court outside the six-month time-limit.In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 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 applications nos. 78459/12 and 76741/13 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, except for applications nos. 52951/11 and 62419/12, 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 28 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Yonko GrozevActing 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 nameDate of birthRepresentative name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant (in euros)[1]   27052/0917/04/2009Borys Mykolayovych Bondarenko10/12/1962Oleg Valeriyovych BordyugZaporizhya23/10/2006 to 20/08/20103 years, 9 months and 29 daysArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis:1) 23/10/2007 – 25/03/2008 - detention without court order;2) 27/11/2008 - 23/12/2008 - detention without court order;3) 23/12/2008 - 20/08/2010 - detention without time limits.5,900   49690/1014/05/2010Oleg Valentinovich Galimon09/04/1968 14/02/2007 to 02/11/2007 04/08/2009 to 25/10/20108 months and 20 days 1 year, 2 months and 22 days 1,200   2517/1230/12/2011Sergey Sergeyevich Kukhtin02/06/1978Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZayetsIrpin07/11/2010 to 06/12/20111 year and 1 monthArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Court decision of 03/02/2011 did not set any time limits for the applicant’s detention; detained solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment had been submitted to the trial court from 07/01/2011 to 03/02/2011. 5,900   52951/1111/08/2011Gleb Eskovich Zelenov03/01/1981 08/02/2008 to 09/08/2010 15/02/2011 to 05/06/20122 years, 6 months and 2 days 1 year, 3 months and 22 daysArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings:4 years and 9 months2 levels of jurisdiction3,100   40818/1214/06/2012Vadim Nikolayevich Tokunov13/10/1962 22/09/2009 to 22/07/20144 years, 10 months and 1 dayArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings:4 years and 10 months1 level of jurisdiction4,000   62419/1228/09/2012Oleg Fedorovich Volokin03/01/1967Yelena Anatolyevna TelyatyevaMoscow -Zelenograd03/07/2008 to 27/07/2009 04/11/2009 to 28/03/2012 17/09/2012 to 15/11/20131 year and 25 days 2 years, 4 months and 25 days 1 year, 1 month and 30 daysArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: lack of reasoning of court orders on the applicant’s detention.5,900   65226/1226/09/2012Tamara Aleksandrovna Nekrasova22/12/1973 02/03/2012 to 23/09/20153 years, 6 months and 22 daysArt. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention: - no duration of detention was indicated by the courts in their decisions of 27/01/2014, 22/05/2014 and 16/06/2015 by which the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended;- lack of reasoning in the courts’ decisions extending the pre-trial detention – mostly “gravity of charges” 5,900   78459/1219/11/2012Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Grebeshkov12/05/1971 21/09/2009 to 16/12/2010 26/04/2011 to 13/03/2012 10/07/2012 to 21/12/2012 11/03/2014 to 19/06/20141 year, 2 months and 26 days 10 months and 17 days 5 months and 12 days 3 months and 9 daysArt. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention: the applicant complains about absence of compensation for the unlawful detention. 2,400   15202/1304/02/2013Gennadiy Vasilyevich Chernov15/12/1962 26/08/2005 to 15/12/2008 20/05/2010 to 10/06/20143 years, 3 months and 20 days 4 years and 22 daysArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: period 26/10/2005 – 07/11/2005 was not covered by any court order.Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings :8 years, 9 months and 16 days2 levels of jurisdiction5,900 42850/1325/06/2013Oleksandr Vasylyovych Kharkiv17/09/1985 09/08/2010 to 27/09/2012 01/03/2013 to 26/06/20152 years, 1 month and 19 days 2 years, 3 months and 26 daysArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings :5 years and 2 months2 levels of jurisdiction3,600 48549/1308/07/2013Aleksandr Sergeyevich Tverdokhleb06/07/1971 01/03/2011 to 25/06/20132 years, 3 months and 25 days 1,400 76741/1320/11/2013Andriy Valeriyovych Yolkin28/05/1988 24/07/2012 - pendingMore than 5 years and 9 monthsArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis: lack of reasoning of the rulings on extension of detention.Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:- the domestic courts failed to address the applicant’s arguments advanced in his numerous requests for release;- court hearings regarding extension of the applicant’s detention on 09/12/2014, 04/05/2015 and 30/04/2015 were held in absence of the applicant or his representative.Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings :More than 5 years and 9 months1 level of jurisdiction5,900 [1]  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.