CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sFFD2DCBA { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.84pt; font-family:Arial } .s8D17540A { width:21.95pt; display:inline-block } Published on 4 November 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27445/22 Volodymyr Ivanovych PANASENKO against Ukraine and 2 other applications – see appended list communicated on 31 August 2023, 21 March 2024 and 14 October 2024 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Considering the applicants’ state of health, was their continued detention compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Contrada v. Italy (no. 2) , no.   7509/08, §§   79-85, 11   February 2014, Farbtuhs v. Latvia , no. 4672/02, §§   58-61, 2   December 2004, and Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   13472/18, §§   73-90, 22   March 2022)?   2.     Did the State perform an adequate and timely assessment of the compatibility of the applicants’ state of health with their detention (see, for instance, Dorneanu v. Romania , no.   55089/13, §§ 95-100, 28   November 2017)?   In particular, did the procedure of release of convicts from further serving a sentence due to incompatibility of their state of health with detention envisaged in law meet the requirements of quality of the law? Was this procedure sufficiently clear to ensure the practical possibility of release for such persons? Was the manner of interpretation of this procedure by domestic courts foreseeable?       APPENDIX   List of applications   27445/22   Panasenko v. Ukraine 37163/22   Rubchenko v. Ukraine 41607/23   Bychkov v. Ukraine