The ECHR upheld the complaint filed by attorney Denis Ponomarenko and awarded monetary compensation in the case

The European Court of Human Rights, following its review of the complaint prepared by a partner at the “Barristers” Law Firm Denis Ponomarenko, found a violation of Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ruled in favor of the client of the “Barristers” Law Firm, and awarded monetary compensation in the case.

Circumstances of the Case

By a ruling dated May 19, 2011, citizen V. was charged with committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Subsequently, attorney Denis Ponomarenko joined the criminal case as defense counsel for the defendant V.

This criminal case has been repeatedly heard in Ukrainian courts at all levels.

We draw attention to the number of key court decisions in this case.

December 23, 2013 – The Lyubashivsky District Court of Odesa Oblast issued an acquittal.

May 23, 2014 – The Odesa Regional Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of December 23, 2013, and issued a new guilty verdict.

December 9, 2014 – The High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases overturned the May 23, 2014, verdict of the Odesa Regional Court of Appeals and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.

June 18, 2015 – The Odesa Regional Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal handed down by the Lyubashivsky District Court of the Odesa Region on December 23, 2013, and issued a new verdict.

November 5, 2015 – The High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases overturned the judgment of the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal dated June 18, 2015, and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.

March 15, 2016 – The Odesa Regional Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal handed down by the Lyubashivsky District Court of the Odesa Region on December 23, 2013, and ordered a new trial in the same court of first instance.

April 28, 2016 – The High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases refused to initiate cassation proceedings on the defense’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal dated March 15, 2016.

March 21, 2017 – The Supreme Court of Ukraine denied the defense’s motion to extend the deadline for filing a petition for review of the court decision by the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases dated April 28,2016.

February 10, 2017, a ruling by a judge of the Lyubashiv District Court of the Odesa Region scheduled a preparatory hearing for a new trial of the criminal case in the court of first instance.

On April 17, 2018, the Lyubashivsky District Court of Odesa Oblast found citizen V. guilty of committing the crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, along with a two-year ban on holding positions in government bodies involving organizational and administrative functions. Pursuant to Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the defendant was released from serving his sentence on probation for a probationary period of one year.

The defense filed an appeal against the court’s verdict.

Violation of Citizen V.’s rights guaranteed by the ECHR

The length of the criminal proceedings and the failure of the authorities hearing the case (the courts of Ukraine) a particular diligence to ensure the progress of the judicial proceedings in the case of citizen V., indicated the unreasonableness of the duration of the criminal proceedings (in the courts alone, they have already lasted more than 5 years), the absence of any prospect of the case being resolved in the near future, and a clear violation by the Ukrainian courts of the principle of a reasonable time for the examination of the case, as provided for in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Furthermore, as a result of the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, Citizen B had no legal remedy available in the national courts that would have enabled him to exercise his right to “a hearing within a reasonable time,” as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the Convention.

In this regard, Citizen V.’s defense counsel, Attorney Denis Ponomarenko, filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights regarding the violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (violation of Article 6(1)—Right to a Fair Trial; violation of Article 13—Right to an Effective Remedy)—prepared a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, which was filed by Citizen V. with the ECHR in 2017.

ECHR Decision.

Attorney Denis Ponomarenko represented Citizen V. before the European Court of Human Rights.

Citizen V.’s complaint was considered together with other complaints in the case of “Trishkovskaya and Others v. Ukraine” (CASE OF TRISHKOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE).

The European Court of Human Rights concluded that “the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a ‘reasonable time…,’ the applicants did not have an effective remedy at their disposal,” and therefore found a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In addition, by a judgment of the ECHR dated June 14, 2018, citizen V. was awarded monetary compensation.