The lawyer of the fugitive ex-MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko, according to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), will receive EUR 15,000 from the state of Ukraine for the fact that in 2016, while working as the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (NABU) detective group, Klymenko negligently investigated the complaint of Oleksandr Sergiyenko (the lawyer of the MP) about ill-treatment.
This is written by political scientist Volodymyr Soniuk in a column for the Censor publication.
The corresponding ECHR decision was published on the official website of the ECHR on November 7, 2024.
The European Court of Human Rights adopted a decision in the case "Sergiyenko v. Ukraine" (application No. 72678/16), recognizing the violation of the rights of lawyer Oleksandr Sergienko by the NABU.
The circumstances of this case are directly related to another well-known corruption scheme in the Ukrgasvydobuvannia company. The interests of former MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko in this case were represented by lawyer Oleksandr Sergiyenko. The latter, together with Onyshchenko, is being tried as a defendant in the case of gas fraud. According to the investigation, the suspects, including Sergiyenko, participated in obtaining gas under a joint activity agreement, which was qualified as embezzlement and forgery of documents.
In June 2016, Sergiyenko was arrested and taken into custody. In September of the same year, the court changed the preventive measure to 24-hour house arrest. However, the next day, while he was being transported from the pre-trial detention center home, NABU re-arrested him on a new suspicion.
Three days later, the court legalized the new arrest (decided to detain Sergiyenko within the framework of a new investigation). The lawyer immediately appealed this decision, but had to wait almost a month for the appeal. The complaint was ultimately dismissed.
During this arrest, the lawyer sustained physical injuries, including bruises on his chest, arms, and nose, which were recorded upon his return to the pre-trial detention center.
The court ordered an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment, and the NABU even initiated proceedings. However, law enforcement officers found that Sergiyenko had behaved inappropriately during his detention. Therefore, during the conflict, the officers only responded to the lawyer’s resistance by using handcuffs. The investigation ended with the NABU officers’ actions being deemed lawful and the crime not being committed.
When Sergiyenko suffered a setback from the Ukrainian Themis, he decided to apply to the ECHR. In turn, the ECHR found that the investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment did not meet the requirements of independence and effectiveness, since it was conducted by the same body (NABU) that was investigating him. In addition, the Ukrainian state did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment.
The court found that the 28-day period for considering an appeal against the decision to detain him is too long, which violates the right to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention.
The ECHR also ordered Ukraine to pay Sergiyenko EUR 15,000 in compensation for the violation of his rights.
Volodymyr Soniuk writes that Onyshchenko's lawyers hope that this decision will help to dismantle the "gas case", because the ECHR pointed to gross violations by detectives at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, as well as numerous abuses and violations of the rights of both the defendants and lawyers.
"Thus, Klymenko, who headed the group of detectives, actually facilitated and directed actions aimed at violating the right of the individual, stipulated in Article 3 of the Convention," he explains. - "Obviously, Klymenko feels good in his position, because the state will compensate for the losses according to the ECHR decision, and not the then head of the NABU detectives."
This simple example, says Sonyuk, once again shows the low efficiency of anti-corruption investigations, either due to insufficient professional competence, or due to ordinary negligence, or the corruption of the "anti-corruption" bodies, which have to be paid for with budget money, that is, taxpayers' money, which is currently scarce in Ukraine. And can officials, who cause losses to the state with their incompetent actions, remain in their positions?
Who we are: About us, Contacts. How we write news and our principles: Editorial code. We did our best. If you found this valuable – please support us.
To request a correction, please send an email.