Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
. Notice of the above complaints was given to the Government on 25 January 2018 (application no. 24751/10 ) and 29 January 2018 ( application no. 63824/10 ) , and the remaining complaints, including the second applicant ' s complaint concerning hi s detention from 15 February to 6 May 2006, were declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
. On 21 May 2008 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant ' s pre-trial detention with effect from 18 May 2008. The relevant decision stated that he might otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further details regarding the above-mentioned reasons were provided by the court. The applicant ' s detention was subsequently extended a number of times on similar grounds.
. On 22 December 2011 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 7 April 2010 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh consideration. It also ordered the applicant ' s further detention. No reasons for the applicant ' s detention or a time-limit on that detention were set out in the decision of the appeal court.
. The second applicant, Mr Igor Leonidovych Tsyganok, was born in 1964 and lives in Kyiv.
. On 14 February 2006 a criminal investigation for fraud was instituted in respect of the applicant. On 15 February 2006 he was arrested in the context of the above investigation.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.