EU & Human Rights

LOPUSHANSKYY v. UKRAINE - 27793/08 (Communicated Case)

[2012] ECHR 1248European Court of Human Rights2012

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All EU & Human Rights cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Application no. 27793/08 Volodymyr Mykhaylovych LOPUSHANSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 23 April 2008

The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Mykhaylovych Lopushanskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Yuzhnoukrayinsk , Ukraine .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

On 25 and 29 March 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for extortion following compl aints of private persons. On 30 March 2004 the applicant was arrested as a suspect and detained until 1 April 2004.

On 20 April 2004 the Yuzhnoukrayinskyi Town Court quashed the decisions of 25 and 29 March 2004 as unsubstantiated.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 � 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings before the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal, which were held in the absence of the applicant?

2. Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

3. If yes,

a) has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in detention, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the conditions of his detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

b) was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 � 1 of the Convention?

c) did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 � 1, as required by Article 5 � 5 of the Convention?