Case of European Court of Human Rights, January 09, 2020 (case NOVIKOV v. UKRAINE)

Resolution Date:January 09, 2020

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)




(Application no. 47067/11)



9 January 2020

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

In the case of Novikov v. Ukraine,

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

Yonko Grozev, President,Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,Lado Chanturia, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2019,

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


  1. The case originated in an application (no. 47067/11) 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, Mr Sergey Sergeyevich Novikov (“the applicant”), on 20 July 2011.

  2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was initially represented by Ms N. Lysenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. She was succeeded by Ms N. Okhotnikova, a lawyer also practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice.

  3. The applicant complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment while in detention. He also complained, under Article 5 of the Convention, that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and lacked reasoning, and that there had been no effective procedure available to him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Lastly, he complained, under Article 34 of the Convention, that his access to his representative before the Court had been restricted.

  4. On 7 December 2016 the Government were given notice of the application.

  5. On 6 April 2017 the applicant died. On 8 November 2017 his mother, Ms Maya Mykolayivna Klementyeva, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.

  6. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee as they did not consider that the case was subject to well‑established case-law. There was no explanation or reasons given for that opinion. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it (see, for a similar approach, Nedilenko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 43104/04, § 5, 18 January 2018; Lada v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 32392/07, § 4, 6 February 2018; and Geletey v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 23040/07, § 4, 24 April 2018).



  7. The applicant, Mr Sergey Sergeyevich Novikov, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973.

  8. On 26 June 2010 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Security Service on suspicion of drug trafficking.

  9. On 28 June 2010 he was brought before the Chervonozavodskyy District Court in Kharkiv, which extended the duration of the applicant’s detention in police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining an assessment of his personality.

  10. On 5 July 2010 the same court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. The decision stated that he had been accused of a serious crime and could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further reasons were provided by the court.

  11. On 25 August, 24 September, 15 October, 24 November 2010 and 18 March 2011 the courts extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, most recently until 26 June 2011. Those decisions were based mainly on the grounds that the case was complex and the proceedings were pending, that the applicant had been accused of a serious crime, that he might evade investigation and trial and obstruct the establishment of the facts in the case, and that he might continue committing crimes. No further details were given by the courts. Some of the decisions also contained a statement that the applicant’s personal information had been duly noted.

  12. On 25 June 2011 the investigation was completed and the case was referred with an indictment to the Kominternovskyy District Court for trial.

  13. On 20 July 2011 at the preliminary hearing of the applicant’s criminal case, the above court examined an application by the applicant for release and dismissed it as unfounded.

  14. The...

To continue reading