CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } Published on 13 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43301/22 Bogdan Mykolayovych MALETS against Ukraine and 13 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants have been held in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities, or under 24-hour house arrest. Invoking Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the lack of or restricted access to an air-raid shelter in detention facilities or at the place of their residence (in   case of house arrest), which, in the circumstances of the ongoing war in Ukraine and in the view of possible shelling, puts their lives in danger. In   applications nos. 43301/22 and 28242/24, the applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in relation to the above complaints. The applicant in application no.   26959/24 also complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he, a life prisoner, suffered discrimination as compared to other prisoners in that he was not escorted to a detention facility shelter during air-raids attacks. The applicants also raise other complaints under different Articles of the Convention, which are listed in the appended table.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS Has the applicants’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been put in danger as claimed by them? In particular, have the Government taken appropriate steps to safeguard the applicants’ lives? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 43301/22 AND 28242/24 Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by its Article 13? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION NO. 26959/24 Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with its Article 2? In particular, has the applicant, a life prisoner, been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with other prisoners on account of the possibility to access an air-raid shelter available in a detention facility? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 25745/23, 563/24, 2867/24, 2887/24, 4372/24, 22858/24, 26959/24, 28242/24 AND 525/25 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicants’ detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see   Melnik v. Ukraine , no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, 30 January 2020)? 2.     As regards application no. 22858/24, were the conditions of the applicant’s transportation between the detention facility and courts compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Yakovenko v. Ukraine , no.   15825/06, §§ 107-9, 25 October 2007)? 3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 43301/22 AND 563/24 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechay v. Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 69-72, 1 July 2021)? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see   Nechay v. Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 76-79, 1 July 2021)? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 43301/22 AND 28242/24 1.     Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons, for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, while extending the applicants’ detention? Did they consider alternative measures to the applicants’ continued detention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 79-81, 10   February 2011, and Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 168-76, 4   July   2019)? 2.     As regards application no. 43301/22, did the courts provide proper reasons while refusing bail for the applicant (see Grubnyk v. Ukraine , no.   58444/15, §§ 116-30, 17 September 2020)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION NO. 28242/24 Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, as required by its Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30   April 2013, and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Detention Facility Period of Detention Other complaints raised 1. 43301/22 Malets v.   Ukraine 02/09/2022 Bogdan Mykolayovych MALETS 1970 Kharkiv Ukrainian Roman Petrovych GAYDAY Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 28/01/2020 – 08/02/2023   Article 5 § 3 – alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasons employed by the domestic courts as the case progressed from 28/01/2020 to 08/02/2023 (see Kharchenko   v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§   77-81, 10   February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine , no.   40583/15, §§   38-42, 15   December 2016); allegedly unlawful refusal of bail;   Article 6 § 1 – allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings – from 28/01/2020 – pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (see   Nechay   v. Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§   69-72, 1 July 2021);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings (see   Nechay   v.   Ukraine ,   no.   15360/10, §§   76-79, 1   July   2021).     2. 46128/22 Moskalyov v.   Ukraine 22/09/2022 Vladyslav Vasylyovych MOSKALYOV 1996 Odesa Ukrainian Denys Vasylyovych PONOMARENKO Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 19/10/2020 – 24/11/2022   3. 46618/22 Aliyev v.   Ukraine 30/09/2022 Pakhrudin Mukhtarovich ALIYEV 1968 Ukrainian Saykha Omarpashayevna SAYPUDINOVA Zhytomyr Detention Facility No. 8   4. 11323/23 Protas v.   Ukraine 14/02/2023 Oleksandr Mykolayovych PROTAS 1969 Kyiv Ukrainian Ivan Ivanovych STAROSTA Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 27/12/2022 pending   5. 25745/23 Pozyubanova v. Ukraine 27/05/2023 Kateryna Stepaniovna POZYUBANOVA 1980 Odesa Ukrainian Anna Sergiyivna ZHEGULINA Mykolaiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 19/08/2022 – 27/01/2023   Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: poor quality of food; lack or insufficient quantity of food; no or restricted access to warm water; infestation with insects/rodents; inadequate temperature; mouldy or dirty cell (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020) 6. 563/24 Rutkovskyy v.   Ukraine 09/01/2024 Valeriy Valeriyovych RUTKOVSKYY 1988 Kyiv Ukrainian Anna Sergiyivna ZHEGULINA Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 22/02/2019 pending Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; lack of fresh air; poor quality of food; infestation with insects/rodents; inadequate temperature; mouldy or dirty cell; applicant transported on numerous occasions (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020);   Article 6 § 1 – allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings – from 25/11/2017 –pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see   Nechay   v.   Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§   69-72, 1 July 2021);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings (see   Nechay   v.   Ukraine ,   no.   15360/10, §§   76-79, 1   July   2021).   7. 1793/24 Dondik v.   Ukraine 28/12/2023 Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych DONDIK 1986 Zaporizhzhia Ukrainian Teymur Kurbanovych MAMEDOV 24-hour house arrest, Zaporizhzhia, 07/11/2023   pending     8. 2867/24 Melnyk v.   Ukraine 05/01/2024 Mykola Petrovych MELNYK 1964 Kyiv Ukrainian Mykhaylo Yuriyovych SAMULYAK Chortkiv Detention Facility No. 26, 11/04/2023 – 07/09/2023 Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperature; passive smoking; no or restricted access to shower; poor quality of potable water; poor quality of food; lack of bed linen; lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities; lack of toiletries; lack of or insufficient physical exercise in   fresh air (see Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020). 9. 2887/24 Nikiforov v.   Ukraine 05/01/2024 Roman Viktorovych NIKIFOROV 1980 Sumy Ukrainian 10. 4372/24 Dzhyganskyy v. Ukraine 27/01/2024 Mykola Khrystoforovych DZHYGANSKYY 1954 Kherson Ukrainian Andriy Valeriyovych SKRYNNYK Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 09/12/2022 – pending Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: inadequate temperature; lack of toiletries; no or restricted access to running water; lack of privacy for toilet; lack of or insufficient natural and electric light (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020). 11. 22858/24 Pryadko v. Ukraine 07/08/2024 PRYADKO Yevgen Olegovych 1983 Dnipro Ukrainian Anna CARTIER Dnipro Pre-Trial Detention Facility No. 4, 15/02/2024 – 04/09/2024 Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; lack of bed linen; mouldy or dirty cell; no   access to warm water; infestation of cell with insects/rodents; poor quality of food (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020) and   transportation in a prison van (see   Yakovenko v. Ukraine , no.   15825/06, §§   107-9, 25   October 2007);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020). 12. 26959/24 Datsyuk v. Ukraine 27/07/2024 Valeriy Petrovych DATSYUK 1987 Cherneshchyna Ukrainian   Temnivka Detention Facility No. 100, 28/03/2023 – 06/05/2024 Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention in Temnivka Detention Facility no. 100: overcrowding; mouldy cell; lack of fresh air; lack of natural light; insufficient electric light; lack of privacy for toilet; no   access to running water; restricted access to shower; insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; insufficient quantity and poor quality of food; poor quality of potable water; lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities (see Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020).   13. 28242/24 Pushechkina v. Ukraine 09/09/2024 Tetyana Yuriyivna PUSHECHKINA 1993 Chornobayivka Ukrainian Anna Sergiyivna ZHEGULINA   Vinnytsia Detention Facility No. 1, 13/04/2023 – 09/05/2024   Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; mouldy or dirty cell; infestation of cell with insects/rodents; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperature; lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; detention of women together with men (see Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020);   Article 5 § 3 – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasons employed by the domestic courts as the case progressed from 13/04/2023 to 09/05/2024 (see   Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§   77-81, 10   February 2011, and Ignatov v. Ukraine , no.   40583/15, §§   38-42, 15   December 2016);   Article 5 § 5 – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention – no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 (see   Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no.   49872/11, §§   286-87, 30   April 2013, and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no.   28718/09, §   55, 5 March 2015).   14. 525/25 Prykhodko v. Ukraine 18/12/2024 Vadym Yuriyovych PRYKHODKO 1996 Ukrainian Dariya Anatoliyivna MAKHNENKO Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 06/06/2024 – 16/12/2024 Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; mouldy or dirty cell; infestation of cell with insects/rodents; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperature; lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen; lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities; lack of toiletries; no or restricted access to potable water; no or restricted access to warm water; lack of privacy for toilet; lack of or insufficient natural and electric light; restricted access to shower; lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; insufficient quantity and poor quality of food (see Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   89-100, 30   January 2020);   Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see   Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, §§   118-23, 30   January 2020).