Ukrainian opposition leader was arbitrarily arrested and detained.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Lutsenko v. Ukraine (application no. 6492/11), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
two violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of Mr Lutsenko’s arrest and ensuing detention;
a violation of Article 5 § 2 (right to be informed of the reasons for one’s arrest);
two violations of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge)on account of both his arrest and his pre-trial detention;
a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to challenge the lawfulness of one’s detention);
a violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5.
In his submissions to the Court, Mr Lutsenko had complained, without referring to any particular article of the Convention, that the proceedings against him and his arrest had been used by the authorities to exclude him from political life and from participation in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The Court considered that that complaint should be examined under Article 18.
Given that he was one of the opposition leaders, it was clear that Mr Lutsenko’s case had attracted considerable attention. Being accused of abuse of office, he had the right to reply to such an accusation via the media. The prosecuting authorities had indicated his communication with the media as one of the grounds for his arrest. They had accused him of distorting public opinion concerning the offences with which he had been charged, of discrediting the prosecuting authorities and of influencing the upcoming trial in order to avoid criminal liability.
In the Court’s opinion, such reasoning clearly demonstrated the authorities’ attempt to punish Mr Lutsenko for publicly disagreeing with accusations against him and for asserting his innocence. The Court could not but find that the restriction on his liberty had been imposed not only for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, but also for other reasons. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5.
Отдельные адЪвокаты кричали, что не бывает. Но вот же: натуральное нарушение ст 18 Конвенции - так называемая "политмотивация". Это еще раз подчеркивает "класс" отдельных адЪвокатов.