15485/25

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GRINKOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 15485/25)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 April 2026           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Grinkov 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 26 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 13 May 2025. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr O.A. Myronov, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. 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). 8.  The Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases 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 the 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 16 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 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] 15485/25 13/05/2025 Oleg Yuriyovych GRINKOV   31/03/2025-02/04/2025 No legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020),   Deficiencies in drafting the arrest protocol, lack of details for the arrest of the applicant without the prior court authorisation (see Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 25-29, 23 May 2024) Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - in either proceedings under Article 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the proceedings on the applicant’s pre-trial detention the courts failed to sufficiently address the applicant’s arguments about the unlawfulness of and lack of grounds for his arrest without a prior court order on 31/03/2025 (see Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine, nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, § 123, 15 September 2022; Trofimenko v. Ukraine, no. 18444/18, §§ 21-22, 4 May 2023),   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, §§ 82-84, 27 February 2018; Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 201, 4 July 2019) 2,340   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.