FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 25851/06 
by Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich LYUBART-SANGUSHKO  
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President, 
 
Renate Jaeger, 
 
Karel Jungwiert, 
 
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, 
 
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, 
 
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, 
 
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge, 
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Lyubart-Sangushko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kharkiv.

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

On 23 August 1999 police officers confiscated the applicant’s firearm which he had made from a gas gun. The applicant states that they did so without his consent or a court order, by entering his household and by threatening him with rubber truncheons and guns. He did not complain about this in his appeal in cassation.

On 2 September 1999 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful making and storage of a firearm.

As it appears from the case file, on 21 February 2000 the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv (“District Court”) delivered a judgment in respect of the applicant. On 21 March 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) quashed it and remitted the case for an additional investigation, following which on 4 September 2000 the case was referred to the District Court.

In the course of the proceedings, on 3 April 2003 and 15 December 2004 respectively, the District Court found the applicant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to ten and fifteen days’ administrative arrest. The applicant states that during the above court hearings he was put in handcuffs and that while serving the administrative arrest in the detention centre he was given poison with his meals, was exposed to buzzer sounds and unspecified persons humiliated him. On 29 December 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the resolution of 15 December 2004 for having been given in breach of the legislative requirements.

On 25 November 2005 the District Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful making and storage of a firearm, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and discharged him as the period of limitation had expired. It also ordered the destruction of the confiscated firearm.

On 25 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.

On 22 June 2006 and 22 February 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s and the prosecutor’s appeals in cassation against the judgment of 25 November 2005 and the ruling of 25 February 2006.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings that concerned unlawful making and storage of a firearm and that were brought against him was unreasonable. In particular, he says that they lasted from 2 September 1999 to 22 February 2007.

2.  The applicant further raises the following complaints under the Convention and its Protocols:

-  Articles 1, 15 and 17, without further detail;

-  Article 3 that the criminal proceedings and his administrative arrest amounted to torture, that he was put in handcuffs during the court hearings concerning his administrative arrests and that while serving the administrative arrests in the detention centre he was given poison with his meals, was exposed to buzzer sounds and unspecified persons humiliated him;

-  Article 5 about unlawfulness of his administrative arrest,

-  Article 6 § 1, 7 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about unfavourable outcome of the criminal proceedings;

-  Article 8 that the police officers entered his household without his consent or the court order for confiscating his firearm;

-  Article 14 on account of the outcome of the proceedings alleging that he was discriminated on the basis of his Polish and Lithuanian ethnicity;

-  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the outcome of the proceedings as his firearm had been confiscated and destroyed;

-  Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 that he did not get compensation for his administrative arrests;

-  the applicant also complains, without invoking any provision of the Convention and without providing any further detail and all court decisions, that the domestic courts failed to examine his claims against various State authorities for recovery of monetary deposits.

THE LAW

A.  The length of the criminal proceedings

The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

B.  Other complaints

The Court, having examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen  
 Registrar President

LYUBART- SANGUSHKO v. UKRAINE DECISION


LYUBART- SANGUSHKO v. UKRAINE DECISION