AVRAAMOVA v. UKRAINE

CourtFifth Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
Judgment Date20 September 2022
ECLIECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0920JUD000271812
CounselPONOMARYOV S.S.
Date20 September 2022
Application Number2718/12
Respondent StateUcrania
Applied Rules3;5;5-1;5-3;5-5

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF AVRAAMOVA v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 2718/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 September 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Avraamova v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Lado Chanturia, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 2718/12) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Tetyana Viktorivna Avraamova (“the applicant”), on 24 December 2011;

the interim measure indicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the subsequent decision to lift that measure;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Government;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 10 March 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

The present case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention relating to the conditions of her detention, the alleged inadequacy of her medical treatment and her handcuffing in hospital, as well as her complaints under Article 5 of the Convention relating to the alleged arbitrariness of her arrest, the justification for her pre-trial detention and the lack of any enforceable right to compensation in that regard.

THE FACTS

1. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Krynychne. She was represented by Mr S.S. Ponomaryov, a lawyer practising in Bilohirsk.

2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna, of the Ministry of Justice.

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

  1. The applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention

4. About two weeks before the events to which the present case relates, the applicant had been promoted from the post of deputy head of division in the State Bailiffs Service of the Bilohirsk City Department of Justice to deputy head of that department.

5. On 25 August 2011 she was arrested in her office following allegations of bribe-taking.

6. On 26 August 2011 the Bilohirsk Court extended the applicant’s arrest to eight days, noting that more information was required to decide on the investigator’s application for her detention as a preventive measure pending trial. The court noted that, in addition to the seriousness of the charge, the applicant’s age, state of health, family and financial situation, professional activities, place of residence and other pertinent circumstances had to be taken into account.

7. On 2 September 2011 the Bilohirsk Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months. The court’s decision stated that as the applicant was suspected of a serious offence, she might put pressure on witnesses by using her official position, and, if at liberty, she could evade the investigation and trial or hinder the establishment of the truth. No further details were provided.

8. On 20 September 2011 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the above-mentioned ruling. The Court of Appeal further noted that there was no indication that the state of her health prevented her from being detained.

9. On 21 October 2011 the Bilohirsk Court dismissed a request by the applicant for release subject to an undertaking not to abscond, and extended the term of her detention to three months. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant was suspected of a serious offence, that she had not admitted her guilt and, indeed, that she had not made any statements at all. Accordingly, there was a risk that she might try to influence witnesses while at liberty. Furthermore, the applicant’s participation was required in the investigative measures yet to be taken.

10. On 10 November 2011 the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 21 October 2011. It noted that there were no grounds to alter the previously chosen preventive measure, and the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was justified given, in particular, the large volume of investigative activities which remained to be conducted.

11. On 8 December 2011 the Bilohirsk Court committed the applicant for trial and extended her detention, having noted, without any further explanation, that there were no grounds to alter the preventive measure or to release the applicant.

12. On 19 December 2011 the trial court found the applicant guilty of bribe-taking and sentenced her to three years and three months’ imprisonment, combined with deprivation of the right to hold positions in the bodies of the State Bailiffs Service for three years. In the course of the trial the applicant fully admitted her guilt. That judgment was upheld by the appellate court on 15 March 2012. The applicant did not inform the Court whether she had appealed on points of law.

13. On 31 July 2012 the applicant was transferred to prison to serve her sentence there.

14. On 13 May 2013 the local court ordered the applicant’s release on parole. On 21 May 2013 the applicant was released from prison.

  1. Material conditions of the applicant’s detention
    1. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT