Last Updated on November 16, 2023 by LawEuro
Having examined all the material submitted to it, the European Court of Human Rights 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 during the periods indicted in the appended table were inadequate.
The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
Full text of the document.
European Court of Human Rights
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BULKACH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 68847/14 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bulkach and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Lado Chanturia,
María Elósegui, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,
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. Some 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 that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 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 during the periods indicted in the appended table 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. In application no. 6800/15 the applicant 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 the cases set out in the appended table.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In applications nos. 68847/14 and 60093/21 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
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 the applications 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of applications nos. 68847/14 and 60093/21 inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been 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 in that regard;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the 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 16 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni
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 in that regard)
| 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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 68847/14
17/10/2014 |
Sergiy Petrovych BULKACH
1976 |
Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych
Dnipro |
Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4
08/04/2014 to 12/03/2015 11 months and 5 days |
3.65 m² | Overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower | 3,100 | |
| 2. | 6800/15
25/12/2014 |
Viktor Mykolayovych KOMAROV
1982 |
|
Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Facility
01/10/2013 to 26/03/2015 1 year and 5 months and 26 days |
2.5-3.7 m² | Inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, poor quality of food, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease | Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 28/09/2013 to 26/03/2015 – failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation and consider alternative measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the domestic courts to extend the applicant’s detention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 February 2016),
Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – since 28/09/2013 onwards before one level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021), Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) |
5,500 |
| 3. | 51182/21
10/09/2021 |
Stanislav Grygorovych MOVCHAN
1976 |
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro |
Poltava Detention Facility no. 23
20/05/2019 to 29/09/2022 3 years and 4 months and 10 days |
2.42 m² | Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient electric light | 7,400 | |
| 4. | 51186/21
10/09/2021 |
Vladyslav Sergiyovych TOPCHYYENKO
1973 |
Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych
Pyatykhatky |
Poltava Detention Facility no. 23
05/08/2017 to 31/01/2022 4 years and 5 months and 27 days |
1.5 m² | Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to shower | 7,500 | |
| 5. | 51190/21
10/09/2021 |
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych MUKOVOZ
1981 |
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro |
Poltava Detention Facility no. 23
22/08/2019 to 26/08/2022 3 years and 5 days |
1.5 m² | Lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 6,800 | |
| 6. | 57901/21
12/11/2021 |
Stepan Stepanovych ANDRIYCHUK
1986 |
Storozhuk Olena Sergiyivna
Kyiv |
Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility
08/08/2018 to 06/07/2021 2 years and 10 months and 29 days |
2.5 m² | Overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air | 6,500 | |
| 7. | 58513/21
08/11/2021 |
Oleksandr Sergiyovych LYEBYEDYEV
1975 |
Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych
Dnipro |
Cherkasy Pre-Trial Detention Facility
13/03/2020 Pending More than 3 years and 5 months and 13 days |
– | Lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries | 7,500 | |
| 8. | 60093/21
01/12/2021 |
Dmytro Dmytrovych SERDYUK
1975 |
Khusayinov Roman Oleksandrovych
Dnipro |
Zaporizhzhya Pre-Trial Detention Facility
03/09/2020 to 14/07/2021 10 months and 12 days, 10/09/2021 to 17/05/2022 8 months and 8 days |
2.5 m² | Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, 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, passive smoking, lack of toiletries | 4,100 | |
| 9. | 61762/21
08/12/2021 |
Oksana Yevgeniyivna DZHEDZHERA
1987 |
Sosyedko Maksym Oleksandrovych
Kyiv |
Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4
30/05/2018 to 06/06/2022 4 years and 8 days |
4.2-6.6 m² | Lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower | 7,500 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply