CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s19D06859 { width:234.09pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s86D3EA10 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s2214C8E5 { width:160.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s50040358 { width:255.75pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TOKAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 22356/20 and 7 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 November 2021       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Tokar and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov, President,   Lado Chanturia,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 October 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the   Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the life sentence with no prospect of release. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the   Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the   Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the   imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible   de jure   and   de facto , meaning that there must be both a   prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§   59-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 8.     In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) , no. 41216/13, 12   March 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 11.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2) cited above, §   201 ) , the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 November 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     {signature_p_2} Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov Acting Deputy Registrar   President         APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (life sentence with no prospect of release) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the trial court Date of the life sentence Judicial decision upholding the conviction     22356/20 06/05/2020 Oleg Mykolayovych TOKAR 1986   Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal, 11/06/2007 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 17/01/2008     23423/20 07/05/2020 Igor Grygorovych ZINCHENKO 1973 Plakhotnyuk Oleksandr Oleksandrovych Kyiv Kyiv City Court, 18/08/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 15/02/2001     23878/20 12/05/2020 Andriy Mykolayovych BONDARENKO 1981 Rovenskyy Oleksandr Valeriyovych Kyiv Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal, 09/03/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 01/07/2004     23899/20 28/05/2020 Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych ORLOV 1974 Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych Kyiv Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal, 20/03/2012 N/A     3177/21 08/12/2020 Sergiy Volodymyrovych DIDENKO 1979 Gorbachevska Tamara Igorivna Kharkiv Kyiv City Court, 20/11/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 12/04/2001     6740/21 14/01/2021 Sergiy Yosypovych KARPOVETS 1976 Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych Kyiv Rivne Regional Court of Appeal, 03/04/2002 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 20/08/2002     7593/21 28/01/2021 Sergiy Dmytrovych BROVKO 1963 Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych Kyiv Kharkiv Regional Court, 11/04/1997 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 10/02/1998   Death penalty commuted to life sentence by decision of the Kharkiy Regional Court, 11/04/2001     8509/21 13/01/2021 Sergiy Georgiyovych SIMON 1987 Revyakin Maksym Oleksandrovych Kharkiv Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 14/08/2009 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 01/06/2010