FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SYENIN v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 19585\/18)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Syenin v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President, Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 17 April 2018.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr O.A. Ignatov, a lawyer practising in the village of NyzhniSirogozy, Ukraine.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applicationwas given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES\u00a03 AND\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Articles\u00a03 and\u00a013 of the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 13<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority …\u201d<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant\u2019s detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096\u2011101, 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122\u00a0\u2011141, and Ananyev and\u00a0Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u2011159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine, (no. 72286\/01, 28 March 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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 applicant\u2019s conditions of detention were inadequate.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286\/01, 28 March 2006), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat it discloses a breach of Articles\u00a03 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n Application raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention<\/p>\n (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161Mits,
\nLadoChanturia, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n