Background
Sergiy Kravchenko and Oleksandr Slabetskyy complained under Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights about their pre-trial detention in Ukraine. Kravchenko was detained from 11 July 2023 to 16 July 2025, a period of two years and six days. Slabetskyy was detained from 28 March to 8 September 2025, a period of five months and twelve days.
Kravchenko alleged that his detention was excessive and that the authorities had not considered alternatives to detention. Slabetskyy challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by domestic courts, arguing that their reasoning was fragile and repetitive as the proceedings continued. The Court joined the applications because they raised similar issues.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously declared both applications admissible and found a violation of Article 5 § 3. It reiterated that, although reasonable suspicion may initially justify detention, it cannot by itself justify continued detention after time has passed. Domestic courts must provide relevant and sufficient reasons, consider alternatives to detention, and conduct proceedings with special diligence.
Applying its established case-law concerning Ukraine, the Court found that the domestic courts in Slabetskyy’s case had failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention. In Kravchenko’s case, it found that the pre-trial detention had been excessively long. The Court awarded Kravchenko €1,300 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage plus €250 in costs and expenses, and Slabetskyy €600 plus €250 in costs and expenses, subject to any applicable tax.
Key Takeaways
- Article 5 § 3 requires relevant and sufficient reasons for detention on remand, including from the initial detention decision.
- Courts must consider alternative measures to ensure an accused person’s appearance at trial.
- Ukraine was liable for excessive detention in Kravchenko’s case and insufficient reasoning for detention in Slabetskyy’s case.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that remand detention cannot be maintained through formulaic reasoning or reliance on suspicion alone. Even a relatively short period of detention may breach Article 5 § 3 if courts do not convincingly explain why detention, rather than an alternative measure, remains necessary.
For Ukrainian courts and criminal practitioners, the decision applies the Court’s established Article 5 § 3 standards to continuing deficiencies in detention decisions and confirms that procedural failures can result in Strasbourg awards even where the underlying criminal proceedings are not before the Court.