CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 3 avril 2025

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; 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 AGUREYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 1843/23 and 5 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 3 April 2025         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Agureyev and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 March 2025, 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 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 during the periods indicated in the appended table 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.     The Court also refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of-detention cases (see Muršić , cited above, §§ 127-28). In particular, in reply to a prima facie case of ill-treatment, complained of by the applicants, the Government is expected to provide 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., should pertain to cells and periods of the applicants’ detention. 9.     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. 10.     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. 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. 11.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12.     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 13.     In application no.   12818/24, the applicant 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 case set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In applications nos.   37744/23 and 12299/24, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions. 15.     The Court has examined the applications 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 16.     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.   37744/23 and 12299/24 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention 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 3 April 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     1843/23 07/12/2022 Albert Ivanovich AGUREYEV 1963       Romny Detention Facility no. 56 14/10/2004 pending More than 20 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 24 day(s) 3.5 m² constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower   7,500 -     37744/23 04/10/2023 Ivan Yuriyovych BADIKA 1987   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Cherkasy Pre-Trial Detention Facility 27/03/2018 pending More than 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) 2.58 – 3.30 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of privacy for toilet     7,500 -     7721/24 12/03/2024 Yevgeniy Yuriyovych REZNIKOV 1990   Sosyedko Maksym Oleksandrovych Kyiv Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4 22/03/2019 pending More than 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2.5 m² overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water   7,500 -     12299/24 10/04/2024 Mykola Grygorovych OVSEYENKO 1989   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Zamkova Detention Facility no. 58 27/06/2021 to 10/04/2024 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 15 day(s) 3.8 m² lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water   6,400 -     12301/24 10/04/2024 Garriy Rubenovych KAPRIYELYAN 1952   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Zamkova Detention Facility no. 58 05/04/2022 to 10/04/2024 2 year(s) and 6 day(s) 3.7 m² lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water   5,000       12818/24 02/05/2024 Igor Volodymyrovych OLIYNYCHOK 1964   Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Facility 11/08/2021 pending More than 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1.65-6 m² overcrowding (until 18/10/2024), lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – 09/08/2021 – pending, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, 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 December 2016);   Art. 5 (4) - lack of speediness of review of detention: the applicant’s appeal of 29/09/2023 against a decision of 21/09/2023 extending his pre-trial detention was examined by the appellate court with the delay of 41 days on 08/11/2023 (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011);   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015). 9,800 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.