Background
Mykhaylo Meshcheryakov was investigated from November 2008 over allegations that he participated in an organised group involved in fictitious businesses and tax evasion. He was detained until July 2012, then released on bail subject to an obligation not to leave Kyiv and to surrender travel documents. The case was remitted to prosecutors twice and was ultimately closed in October 2018 because the limitation period had expired.
The Kyiv Court of Appeal had authorised interception of the applicant’s communications on several occasions in 2007 and 2008. When his lawyer sought access to those authorisation decisions in 2018, the court said they had been destroyed. The applicant also challenged the duration of the proceedings, the travel restrictions and their effects on family contact, and the lack of effective remedies.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8. Criminal proceedings lasted about nine years and eleven months, during which the applicant spent about four years in pre-trial detention and a further four years and six months subject to a residence restriction. Although the case was complex, the Court found no delay attributable to him and identified unjustified inactivity, including a four-year period before the trial court remitted the case for further investigation.
On interception, the destruction of the authorisation decisions meant the Court could not verify that the surveillance had received proper, detailed judicial scrutiny. The Government had not given compelling reasons for refusing the applicant access to the decisions in 2018. The Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded the freedom-of-movement and family-contact complaints, finding the residence restriction proportionate in the circumstances, and found it unnecessary to examine Article 13.
Key Takeaways
- Complex organised-crime proceedings still must be completed within a reasonable time.
- Destroyed wiretap authorisations can prevent the State from demonstrating Convention-compliant judicial oversight.
- Restrictions on travel during criminal proceedings may be proportionate where they are individually justified and later eased or lifted.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that States must preserve a meaningful basis for reviewing covert-surveillance authorisations. Where the underlying orders are unavailable and access is refused without compelling justification, the State may be unable to establish that interception complied with Article 8.
The Court awarded EUR 3,100 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in costs and expenses.