Shoygo v. Ukraine

Parties (including notable third parties)

Mr. Aleksandr Safynovich Shoygo (The Applicant); The Ukrainian Government (The Respondent)

---

Summary of Facts

The Applicant, born in 1985 in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Russia, never had his birth registered and lacked identity documents throughout his life. From 1998 onwards, he allegedly travelled irregularly in Russia and Ukraine, unable to prove his nationality. In November 2011, he was arrested by Ukrainian authorities while attempting to cross into Moldova, and the Odessa Circuit Administrative Court ordered his expulsion and detention pending removal. On appeal, the courts upheld this decision, noting he claimed Russian nationality but had no documentation.

In September 2012, while the Applicant remained in detention, Ukrainian authorities sought confirmation of his Russian nationality from the Russian Embassy, arguing he qualified under Russian nationality laws as a former Soviet citizen who had permanently resided in Russia in 1992. The Applicant was later released from detention and subsequently attempted to appeal his expulsion decision to the High Administrative Court, but this was dismissed for non-payment of court fees. Later, the Russian Embassy stated it could not verify that he was a Russian national based on the available information. The Applicant subsequently obtained a temporary residence permit in Ukraine and documents identifying him as a Russian national.

---

Legal Arguments

Legal arguments by the Applicant

The Applicant argued that his detention violated Article 5(1) ECHR because the authorities knew from the outset that expulsion was impossible due to his lack of identity documents. He maintained that detention was unnecessary, less restrictive alternatives were not considered and the authorities failed to act with the requisite diligence in pursuing removal.

He further claimed a breach of Article 5(4), asserting that he lacked an effective procedure to challenge the legality of his detention. In particular, he argued that his appeal was unjustifiably rejected by the High Administrative Court, and at the time – prior to legislative reform in 2017 – domestic law provided no mechanism for periodic review of immigration detention. Finally, he alleged a violation of Article 5(5), as he had no enforceable right to compensation for the unlawful detention.

Legal arguments by the Respondent

The Ukrainian Government contested the Applicant's arguments, particularly stating that there had been grounds for the applicant’s expulsion, as per the domestic courts' decisions, and the authorities acted expeditiously.

Outcome

The Court noted the challenge faced by the Ukrainian authorities in organising the expulsion of the applicant due to the lack of identity documents. However, it observed that ‘no explanation has been provided for why it took the authorities, who knew about the applicant’s affirmations concerning his Russian nationality from the outset of his detention [...], almost eleven months to contact the Embassy of the Russian Federation to attempt to obtain a travel document for him’ (paragraph 23). The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to act with the requisite diligence in the proceedings to deport the Applicant, in violation of Article 5(1).

The Court also held that there has been a violation of Article 5(4) due to the absence, at the relevant time (i.e. prior to the reform of the Code of Administrative Justice in 2017), of a procedure in domestic law to review the lawfulness of the applicant's detention.

Finally, the Court reiterated its established case-law that Ukrainian law does not offer an enforceable right to compensation where a violation of Article 5 has been found. It reached the same conclusion in this case, finding a violation of Article 5(5).

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	European Convention on Human Rights	Article 5
Domestic	Law of 3 October 2017 that restated the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine, originally adopted in 2015	Article 289
Domestic	Russian Federation’s Citizenship Act of 1991	Section 13

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

Not available.