Case of European Court of Human Rights, October 22, 2020 (case TALALIKHINA v. UKRAINE)

Resolution Date:October 22, 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 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective... (see full summary)




(Application no. 13919/12)



22 October 2020

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

In the case of Talalikhina v. Ukraine,

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

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,Latif Hüseynov,Lado Chanturia, judges,and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 13919/12) 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 Olga Vasilyevna Talalikhina (“the applicant”), on 20 February 2012;

the decision of 2 May 2019 to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2020,

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


The case concerns the lawfulness and length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the length of the criminal proceedings against her and the lack of effective remedies in that regard.


  1. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sevastopol. She was represented by Mr R. Martynovskiy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.

  2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.

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

  4. On 5 September 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of theft. On the same date she was questioned as a suspect. As a preventive measure, she signed an undertaking not to abscond. On 30 October 2007 the criminal case was referred to the court for trial.

  5. On 13 April 2009 the applicant was involved in a drunken brawl with her cohabitant at home. During the brawl the applicant allegedly hit the man with a hammer. The man was taken to hospital where he died a few days after the incident.

  6. On 17 April 2009 the applicant was arrested and questioned in relation to the incident with her cohabitant.

  7. On 20 April 2009 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol ordered her pre-trial detention.

  8. On 15 June 2009 the Sevastopol City Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment charging the applicant with aggravated infliction of serious bodily harm resulting in death of the victim and referred the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The applicant remained in custody.

  9. On 6 July 2009 the Nakhimovskiy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) committed the applicant for trial and ruled that the preventive measure in respect of her should remain in place.

  10. On 5 August 2011 and 10 May 2012 the District Court dismissed, as unfounded, the applicant’s applications to be released pending trial, considering that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure.

  11. On 20 June 2012 the District Court decided to change the custodial preventive measure in respect of the applicant, accepting as guarantors her relatives. The applicant was released.

  12. On 19 September 2012 the prosecutor dropped the...

To continue reading