Last Updated on December 14, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
European Court of Human Rights
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LYCHKATYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 46933/19 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lychkatyy and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Mārtiņš Mits, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 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 lack of an 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 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. 46933/19, 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 well-stablished case-law set out in the appended table.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In applications nos. 46933/19 and 8218/22, 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, these complaints 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. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Sukachov, cited above) 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, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard 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. 46933/19 and 8218/22 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 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 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[ii] |
| 1. | 46933/19
20/07/2019 |
Oleg Anatoliyovych LYCHKATYY
1972 |
Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych
Limoges |
Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4
09/12/2015 pending More than 7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 day(s) |
5 inmate(s)
2.7 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, lack or insufficient quantity of food, 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’s detention from 05/12/2015 to 25/01/2019 was lengthy and was based on standard-reasoned decisions (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81,
10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 16 December 2016); Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention – no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015). |
9,800 | 250 |
| 2. | 8218/22
28/01/2022 |
Yuriy Valeriyovych DYACHENKO
1988 |
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro |
Chernigiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility
08/05/2020 to 15/06/2022 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) |
2.5-4 m² | overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities | 5,200 | ||
| 3. | 12132/22
08/02/2022 |
Vitaliy Viktorovych SMETANA
1983 |
Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych
Dnipro |
Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4
28/11/2011 pending More than 11 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s) |
2.9-4.5 m² | overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light | 7,500 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[ii] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply