Last Updated on September 30, 2021 by LawEuro
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. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF DASHKEVYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 25844/20 and 2 others – see appended table)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 September 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dashkevych and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2021,
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. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and lack of an effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority …”
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 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
8. 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.
9. 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, as described in the table attached below, were inadequate.
10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicants 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 Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011 and Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016; Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015 and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013; and Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 25844/20 the applicant raised further complaints under Article 3 of the Convention as to the inadequate conditions of his detention prior to 10 May 2019.
14. The Court has examined these complaints 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, they 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
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.
17. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 25844/20 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints 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;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 30 September 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
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] |
| 1. | 25844/20
16/06/2020 |
Yevgen Vasylyovych DASHKEVYCH
1983 |
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro |
Cherkasy Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
10/05/2019 pending More than 2 years and 2 months and 27 days |
2 m² | overcrowding | Art. 6 (1) excessive length of criminal proceedings – pending for more than 4 years, including for more than 3 years before the trial court,
Art. 5 (3) excessive length of pre-trial detention – starting from 21/06/2017 – pending, lack of relevant reasons; no alternative measures to detention properly considered; Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention |
6,900 | 250 |
| 2. | 26777/20
10/06/2020 |
Oleksandr Mykolayovych NEVMERZHYTSKYY
1984 |
Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych
Pyatykhatky |
Cherkasy Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
21/09/2018 pending More than 2 years and 10 months and 16 days |
3.2 m² | infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food | Art. 5 (3) excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant has been in detention since 20/09/2018 until present moment; repetitive reasoning for continued detention,
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention |
8,500 | 250 |
| 3. | 32795/20
14/07/2020 |
Mykola Ivanovych LUKYCH
1991 |
Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych
Pyatykhatky |
Cherkasy Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
19/04/2019 pending More than 2 years and 3 months and 18 days |
2 m² | overcrowding | Art. 5 (3) excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 19/04/2018 till 10/02/2020; use of standard reasoning for detention without assessment of personal circumstances, including as the case progressed; no proper consideration of measures alternative to detention | 7,100 | 250 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply