17279/25

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF NEDYBALYUK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 17279/25)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 January 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nedybalyuk 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 4 December 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 17 May 2025. 2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 4.  The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 5.  The Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). It is true that the provision in question does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention and for hearing applications for release. Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 39, ECHR 2006-VII). 6.  In the leading case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table). 7.  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. 8.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 9.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), 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 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 8 January 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 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Name of the first-instance court Date of detention order Appellate court or court examining request for release Date of decision Procedural deficiencies Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] 17279/25 17/05/2025 Roman Vitaliyovych NEDYBALYUK   Pechersk Court of Kyiv   19/08/2024,   15/10/2024,   18/11/2024,   11/01/2025,   17/02/2025,   16/04/2025 Kyiv Court of Appeal     23/12/2024 (appeal lodged on 23/08/2024), 15/01/2025 (appeal lodged on 21/10/2024), appeal lodged on 22/11/2024 not yet examined, 20/02/2025 (appeal lodged on 16/01/2025), appeal lodged on 20/02/2025 was not yet examined; 08/09/2025 (appeal lodged on 21/04/2025) lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011)     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.