CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 16 November 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 41216/13 Volodymyr Sergiyovych PETUKHOV against Ukraine lodged on 11 June 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Sergiyovych Petukhov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1973 and lived in Zhvyrka. He is represented before the Court by Ms I. Boykova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. In the applicant’s prior application no. 43374/02 the Court, in a judgment of 21 October 2010, found that the State had failed to comply with its obligations to secure the applicant’s health in detention from August 2001 to August 2002. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant In August 2001 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. In a judgment of 3 December 2004 the Kyiv Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of a number of serious crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 25 May 2005 the Supreme Court upheld that sentence. On 29 November 2006 the same court refused to review the applicant’s conviction and sentence in light of extraordinary circumstances. The applicant requested the Supreme Court to review his conviction and sentence in the light of newly discovered circumstances, namely the Court’s above-mentioned judgment. On 16 May 2011 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request. It established that the Court’s verdict had not contained any circumstances which could influence the conclusions concerning the applicant’s guilt and that the Court had not ordered the applicant’s re-trial. In 2013 the applicant requested the Kyiv Court of Appeal to review his case in the light of newly discovered circumstances. The procedure is still pending. 2.     Medical treatment in detention On 2 July 2013 a medical examination of the applicant established that the medical treatment which he received for TB during his detention in 2002-2013 had been ineffective. On the same date the applicant was prescribed palliative treatment as having attained an “untreatable” stage of TB. According to him, since 2 July 2013 he has not received any TB medical treatment or assistance. 3.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention From 10 July 2010 to January 2014 the applicant stayed in the Kherson Prison No. 61 for persons suffering from tuberculosis. According to him, the cells in which he was kept had insufficient ventilation and access to daylight, the food was inadequate and water was dirty. In January 2014 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO of Kherson and placed in cell no. 394 which was very cold and where the walls were covered with mould. He stayed in this cell for about two weeks. After that the applicant stayed for 20 days in cell no. 392. It remains unknown where the applicant is currently held. According to the applicant, he is not allowed to have physical contact with his family members or communicate with them in private during their visits to him in detention. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that his health deteriorated due to inadequate treatment which he received in detention. He also complains, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that since 10   July 2010 the conditions of his detention have been inadequate. He also complains that his life sentence is per se contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that during family visits he is not allowed to communicate with his family in private or have any physical contact with them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, has the State complied with its obligation to safeguard the applicant’s health in detention as required by Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Have the material conditions of the applicant’s detention from 10 July 2010 onwards amounted to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right under Article   8   § 1 of the Convention to respect for private and family life on account of limitations on family visits during his post-conviction detention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   4.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Articles 3 of the Convention in so far as his application concerns incompatibility of his life sentence with Article 3 of the Convention?   5.     Has the applicant been deprived of any prospect of release and thus potentially subjected to inhuman punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the fact that he will never be eligible for release on parole; or can the life sentence imposed on him be characterized as de jure and de facto reducible, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and László Magyar v. Hungary , no.   73593/10, §§ 46-58, 20 May 2014?   6.     Does the fact that the applicant will never be eligible for release on parole constitute a systemic problem incompatible with the Convention (Article 46)?