CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 24 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PODOLYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 12994/23 and 9 others– see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 24 October 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Podolych and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President ,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Artūrs Kučs , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2024, 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 inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention. 7.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article   3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić , cited above, §§   122 ‑ 41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 59, 10   January 2012). 8.     In the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006) and Sukachov v. Ukraine (no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020), 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. In particular, the Court further observes that, in reply to a prima facie case of inadequate conditions of detention, complained of by the applicants, the Government have failed to provide any primary evidence showing cell floor plans and the actual number of inmates during the specific periods of the applicants’ detention (see Ananyev and Others , cited above, § 123, and, for example, Sparysh and Kutsmand v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 49709/18 and 49870/18, 12   September 2024). Other documents and photographs, related to air, food, water quality control, pest control, temperature and luminosity measurements, bathing facilities, privacy of toilet, laundry services etc., either have not been provided or pertained to other cells or periods well before or after the applicants’ detention. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate. 10.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In applications nos.   12994/23 and 34562/23, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Sukachov , cited above, §§ 165 and 167), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of applications nos.   12994/23 and 34562/23 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 October 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Kateřina Šimáčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     12994/23 05/03/2023 Andriy Volodymyrovych PODOLYCH 1986   Savenkov Oleksandr Sergiyovych Velykodolynske Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Facility 19/10/2022 to 07/11/2022 20 day(s) 3.5 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   600     15135/23 16/03/2023 Vadym Borysovych LAGUR 1981   Shumeyko Yaroslav Vitaliyovych Kharkiv Luhansk-Pavlohrad Military Detention Facility 07/10/2022 pending More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4   day(s) 2.8 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature   4,900     22986/23 24/05/2023 Vadym Borysovych SOROKIN 1969   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 16/01/2017 pending More than 7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26   day(s) 2.8-4.4 m² overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of requisite medical assistance, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature   7,500     25490/23 30/05/2023 Aleksandr Ivanovich KRASNYUK 1962   Kushnir Valeriy Volodymyrovych Dnipro Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 06/10/2019 to 01/04/2023 3 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 27   day(s) 2.5 m² no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, passive smoking, overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 28/09/2019 - 01/04/2023, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of the detention on remand, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§   77-81, 10   February 2011 and Ignatov v.   Ukraine , 40583/15, §§   38-42, 15 December 2016) 10,250     28858/23 09/07/2023 Yevgen Anatoliyovych SHALYAPIN 2002   Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa Odesa Pre-trial Detention Facility 15/02/2022 to 27/07/2023 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 13   day(s) 2.5 – 3.5 m² overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   4,000     32406/23 18/08/2023 Igor Ivanovych LEONIDOV 1960   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Poltava Pre-Trial Detention Facility 25/07/2022 pending More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17   day(s) 2.5 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 03/09/2020 - pending, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10   February 2011, Ignatov v.   Ukraine , 40583/15, §§   38-42, 15   February 2016) 6,950     34562/23 30/08/2023 Yuriy Viktorovich ABLYALIMOV 1964   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Ladyzhyn Detention Facility no. 39 26/12/2022 to 09/06/2023 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)                 Ladyzhyn Detention Facility no. 39 30/06/2023 pending More than 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12   day(s) 2.6-3.3 m²                           2.6-3.3 m²       overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   4,300     36212/23 18/08/2023 Viktorio Lakis KHADZHYNIKOLAU 1974   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Poltava Pre-Trial Detention Facility 25/07/2022 pending More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s) 2.5 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 15/05/2021- pending, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measure of restraint (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10   February 2011, Ignatov v.   Ukraine , 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15   February 2016). 6,950     37479/23 24/09/2023 Oleg Sergiyovych OLESHCHENKO 1987   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 01/12/2018 pending More than 5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2.6-4.2 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 19/11/2018 - pending, 3 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v.   Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800   37550/23 24/09/2023 Valentyn Viktorovych SHTANOPRUD 1988   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 01/12/2018 pending More than 5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2.6-3.6 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v.   Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 02/08/2018 - pending, 3 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.