CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31087/19 Demyan Ivanovych STARENKYY against Ukraine lodged on 8 May 2019 communicated on 21 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a life prisoner. Since 19 April 2012, he is serving his sentence in Novgorod-Siverska correctional colony no. 31, in allegedly poor conditions incompatible with the standards of Article   3 of the Convention. The applicant refers, in particular, to the following issues: poor ventilation, insufficient natural light, toilet not being separated from the living area, inadequate furniture, restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lengthy confinement with the same person and lack of contacts with other detainees, lack of out-of-cell human and social interaction or engagement in any purposeful activities, and inadequate outdoor exercise facilities. Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the permanent video surveillance in his cell. He also complains under Article 8 that his prison is located about 1,300   km from Simferopol (Crimea), where his two children live, and that the authorities have arbitrarily rejected his and his children’s requests for his transfer to a closer prison. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Novgorod-Siverska correctional colony no. 31 amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Has the applicant been held in inadequate material conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20   October 2016; Melnik v. Ukraine , no.   72286/01, 28   March 2006; Sukachov v. Ukraine , no. 14057/17, 30   January 2020)?   (b)     Does the applicant have an adequate level of human and social interaction (see Ivan Karpenko v. Ukraine , no. 45397/13, §§   58-65, 16   December 2021)?   (c)     Does the applicant have access to purposeful activities, such as work, education, sports, or recreation, particularly with a view to his rehabilitation (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no.   10511/10, §§   101-104, 26 April 2016, and N.T. v. Russia , no. 14727/11, §§ 44-52, 2 June 2020)? Your Government are requested to specify the nature and the scope of the activities, along with the relevant legal framework, as well as any recent developments in domestic legislation and practice.   2.     Is the applicant under the permanent video surveillance in his cell? If so, has there been an interference with his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Has such interference been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see   Vasilică Mocanu v. Romania , no. 43545/13, §§ 36-41, 6   December   2016, and Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2   others, §§ 81-100, 2 July 2019)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of his placement in a prison remote from the place of residence of his children (see   Vintman   v. Ukraine , no. 28403/05, §§ 76-104, 23 October 2014)?   4.     Does the applicant have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article   35   § 1 of the Convention?