Lutsenko v. Ukraine - 6492/11 - CLIN [2012] ECHR 1900 (03 July 2012)

Lutsenko v. Ukraine - 6492/11 - CLIN [2012] ECHR 1900 (03 July 2012)

The Court found that the applicant's arrest and detention were arbitrary and not justified by the grounds advanced by the authorities. The deprivation of liberty was not necessary to prevent flight or further offending, and the authorities' reliance on the applicant's exercise of free speech and refusal to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 1900
Parties
Applicant: Yuriy Lutsenko; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
03 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
violation of Article 5 §§1, 2, 3, 4 and Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5; judgment for the applicant
Legal Topics
Arbitrary Detention, Politically Motivated Prosecution, Right to Liberty, Freedom of Expression, Fair Trial
Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Arbitrary Detention Politically Motivated Prosecution Right to Liberty Freedom of Expression Fair Trial

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuriy Lutsenko

Applicant

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's arrest and detention violated Article 5 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security)
  2. 2 Whether the deprivation of liberty was for purposes other than those permitted under Article 5
  3. 3 Whether the authorities violated Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 by restricting liberty for unauthorised purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's arrest and detention were arbitrary and not justified by the grounds advanced by the authorities. The deprivation of liberty was not necessary to prevent flight or further offending, and the authorities' reliance on the applicant's exercise of free speech and refusal to self-incriminate as grounds for detention was incompatible with the Convention. The Court concluded that the restrictions on the applicant's liberty were applied for reasons other than those permitted under Article 5, including to punish him for his political activity and public statements, thus violating Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5.

Court Disposition

violation of Article 5 §§1, 2, 3, 4 and Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5; judgment for the applicant

Orders

  • Ukraine to pay EUR 15,000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage