Korban v. Ukraine - Judgment

Sep 13, 2026

Upload by Paura

Judgment in the case of Korban v. Ukraine by the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), adopted on 28 May 2019. The applicant, a Ukrainian national, lodged complaints under multiple Convention provisions concerning conditions of transport, participation in court hearings while medically weak, confinement in a metal cage, alleged violations of liberty safeguards, alleged detention for ulterior political motives, and alleged breaches of the presumption of innocence through public statements by senior State officials.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages54

Reading Time19 min

AccessFree to download

PROCEDURE

Article 34 application and representation

Priority treatment and admissibility

THE FACTS

The applicant’s involvement in Ukrainian politics

Criminal proceedings against the applicant

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KORBAN v. UKRAINE (Application no. 26744/16) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 4 July 2019 FINAL 09/12/2019 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. KORBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Korban v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Angelika Nußberger, President, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, Síofra O’Leary, Mārtiņš Mits, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lado Chanturia, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 26744/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Gennadiy Olegovych Korban (“the applicant”), on 27 April 2016. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr N.S. Kulchytskyy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ivan Lishchyna. 3. On 21 November 2016 the President of the Section decided to grant priority treatment to the case at the applicant’s request under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 4. The applicant complained, in particular, under Article 3 of the Convention, about the conditions in which he had been transported on 2 November 2015, his participation in court hearings on 26-28 December 2015 in spite of being weak after a coronary angioplasty, as well as his confinement in a metal cage during the court hearings of 13, 22 and 25 January 2016. He also complained of a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention. Under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 5 he complained that he had been deprived of his liberty for ulterior motives, namely for political reasons. Lastly, he complained that public statements made by high-ranking State officials in respect of the criminal proceedings against him had been in breach of his right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. 2 KORBAN v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 5. On 5 March 2018 notice of the above complaints was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Dnipro (named Dnipropetrovsk prior to June 2016) . A. The applicant’s involvement in Ukrainian politics 7. From 19 March 2014 to 24 March 2015 the applicant was Deputy Head and Chief of Staff of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration (“the Regional Administration”). As he explained, following a deterioration of relationships between the President of Ukraine and the then Head of the Regional Administration, the latter resigned together with his political team, including the applicant. 8. On 15 September 2014 the applicant was awarded an “Order for Courage” by the President of Ukraine “for his commitment, active civic stance and high professionalism in carrying out his official duties”. 9. On 12 July 2015 the applicant became the leader of a new political party, the Ukrainian Union of Patriots (“UKROP” – Українськеоб’єднання патріотів— “УКРОП”), which sharply criticised those in power in general and President Poroshenko in particular. 10. On 26 July 2015 the applicant, as the UKROP leader, ran for the mid-term parliamentary elections in Chernigiv. Having obtained 14.76% of votes, he lost the elections to the candidate from the “Bloc of Petro Poroshenko”(35.90%) . 11. In the local elections of 25 October 2015 the UKROP party received 7.43% of votes nationwide and came fourth (the three leading parties were:“Bloc of Petro Poroshenko” (19.52%); “Batkivshchyna” (12.2

FAQs

What application and court procedure framed the case?

The case was brought as application no. 26744/16 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Gennadiy Olegovych Korban. Priority treatment was granted under Rule 41, and the Court declared the remainder inadmissible under Rule 54 § 3.

Which Convention rights did the applicant complain were violated?

The applicant alleged violations under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5, Article 18 read with Article 5 for ulterior political motives, and Article 6 § 2 regarding the presumption of innocence due to public statements.

What were the main factual issues raised in the complaints?

The complaints concerned transport conditions on 2 November 2015, participation in court hearings despite being weak after a coronary angioplasty, and confinement in a metal cage during hearings on 13, 22 and 25 January 2016.

Sep 13, 2026

Upload by Paura