1129/25

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PYVOVARCHUK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 1129/25)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pyvovarchuk v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Andreas Zünd, President,  Diana Sârcu,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2026, 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 30 December 2024. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr A.V. Zakharov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 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. THE LAW        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention 5.  The applicant complained principally of the unlawful detention. He relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 6.  The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references). 7.  Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references).  In order for deprivation of liberty to be considered free from such arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is executed in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27-30, 14 October 2010, with further references, and Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007). 8.  The Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading case set out in the appended table. 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 applicant’s detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.      OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  The applicant 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 the case set out in the appended table.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, 29 January 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums 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 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention;      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);      Holds  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;   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 2 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Period of unlawful detention Specific defects Relevant domestic decision Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2] 1129/25 30/12/2024 Yevgeniy Viktorovych PYVOVARCHUK   25/06/2024 – October 2024 Arbitrary detention by the court (Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27-30, 14 October 2010) 25/06/2024, Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - lack of speediness of review of detention: the applicant’s request for review of 25/06/2024 detention order, lodged on 27/06/2024, was examined on 16/09/2024 with a delay of 81 days (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) 2,340   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.