10838/24
WyrokETPCz2025-02-13ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0213JUD001083824
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy nadmierna długość tymczasowego aresztowania skarżącego naruszyła jego prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie lub zwolnienia z aresztu, gwarantowane przez art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał oparł swoje rozstrzygnięcie na ugruntowanych zasadach dotyczących prawa do procesu w rozsądnym terminie lub zwolnienia z aresztu, wynikających z art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji, odwołując się do swoich wcześniejszych wyroków, w tym Kudła v. Polska i McKay v. Zjednoczone Królestwo. Stwierdził, że w sprawach przeciwko Ukrainie, takich jak Kharchenko i Ignatov, już wcześniej znajdował naruszenia w podobnych kwestiach. Analizując przedstawiony materiał, Trybunał nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku, uznając długość tymczasowego aresztowania skarżącego za nadmierną.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Genrik Samvelovich Martyrosyan, urodzony w 1982 roku, był objęty tymczasowym aresztowaniem w Ukrainie od 13 kwietnia 2021 roku do 25 września 2024 roku, co stanowiło okres 3 lat, 5 miesięcy i 13 dni. Skarżył się na nadmierną długość tego aresztowania, wskazując na takie wady jak kruchość uzasadnień sądów, brak rozważenia innych środków zapobiegawczych, powtarzalność argumentacji sądów oraz brak należytej staranności w prowadzeniu postępowania.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: uznaje skargę za dopuszczalną; stwierdza naruszenie art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji w związku z nadmierną długością tymczasowego aresztowania; orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapłacić skarżącemu kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wraz z odsetkami od upływu tego terminu.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MARTYROSYAN v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 10838/24)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 February 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Martyrosyan v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. 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 22 March 2024.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms K.O. Chuyeva, a lawyer practising in Odesa.
3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. 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.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
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 applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
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 13 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
10838/24
22/03/2024
Genrik Samvelovich MARTYROSYAN
Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
13/04/2021 to
25/09/2024
3 years and 5 months and 13 days
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
2,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 13.07.2026. · Źródło