{"id":13524,"date":"2020-12-10T12:18:32","date_gmt":"2020-12-10T12:18:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=13524"},"modified":"2020-12-10T12:18:32","modified_gmt":"2020-12-10T12:18:32","slug":"case-of-lopata-and-others-v-ukraine-european-court-of-human-rights-application-no-84210-17-and-23-others-see-appended-list","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=13524","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF LOPATA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 84210\/17 and 23 others – see appended list"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF LOPATA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 84210\/17 and 23 others – see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 December 2020<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Lopata and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Ivana Jeli\u0107, President,
\nGanna Yudkivska,
\nArnfinn B\u00e5rdsen, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained under Article 3 about their life sentence with no prospect of release. Some applicants also raised other complaints under other the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n

6. The applicants complained principally of their life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

Article 3<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

7. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible\u00a0de jure\u00a0and\u00a0de facto, meaning that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v.\u00a0the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a059-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).<\/p>\n

8. In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216\/13, 12\u00a0March 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n

10. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n

11. The Court has examined the applications 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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.<\/p>\n

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

12. Article 41 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. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, \u00a7\u00a0201), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the complaints concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Liv Tigerstedt \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Ivana Jeli\u0107
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention<\/strong>
\n(life sentence with no prospect of release)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong>
\nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n		Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nYear of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n		Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nName of the trial court<\/strong>
\nDate of the life sentence<\/strong><\/td>\n		Judicial decision upholding the conviction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n84210\/17
\n09\/12\/2017<\/td>\n		Stepan Anatolyevich LOPATA<\/strong>
\n1984<\/td>\n		Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna
\nKharkiv<\/td>\n		Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal
\n12\/12\/2006<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n9511\/18
\n03\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		Volodymyr Mykolayovych BALA<\/strong>
\n1976<\/td>\n		Boykova Iryna Anatoliyivna
\nKyiv<\/td>\n		Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal
\n08\/08\/2003<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n18\/11\/2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n21183\/18
\n25\/04\/2018<\/td>\n		Oleksiy Ivanovych ROMANENKO<\/strong>
\n1976<\/td>\n		Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna
\nKharkiv<\/td>\n		Kherson Regional Court
\n19\/09\/1997<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n26008\/18
\n21\/04\/2018<\/td>\n		Nikolay Yevdokimovich SILI<\/strong>
\n1958<\/td>\n		Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych
\nKyiv<\/td>\n		Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal
\n28\/03\/2007<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n38904\/18
\n07\/07\/2018<\/td>\n		Sergey Petrovich KHUKALENKO<\/strong>
\n1971<\/td>\n		<\/td>\nSumy Court of Appeal
\n23\/06\/2005<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n41765\/18
\n06\/08\/2018<\/td>\n		Volodymyr Ivanovych PANASENKO<\/strong>
\n1959<\/td>\n		<\/td>\nLviv Regional Court of Appeal
\n19\/09\/2008<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n43373\/18
\n01\/09\/2018<\/td>\n		Pakhrudin Mukhtarovich ALIEV<\/strong>
\n1968<\/td>\n		Saypudinova Saykha Omarpashayevna
\nSaratov<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
\n10\/02\/1997<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n15\/05\/1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n58225\/18
\n05\/12\/2018<\/td>\n		Aleksandr Anatolyevich ROMANENKO<\/strong>
\n1972<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Kirovsk Regional Court of Dnipropetrovsk
\n23\/02\/2017<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n05\/06\/2018<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n58644\/18
\n10\/12\/2018<\/td>\n		Valeriy Petrovich VODOTOVKA<\/strong>
\n1960<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Kyiv City Court
\n01\/07\/1997<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n16\/07\/1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n59102\/18
\n10\/12\/2018<\/td>\n		Dmitriy Lvovich SILIN<\/strong>
\n1975<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Kyiv City Court
\n08\/08\/2000<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n26\/04\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n59271\/18
\n10\/12\/2018<\/td>\n		Sergey Stepanovich MARTSYNKEVICH<\/strong>
\n1967<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Ternopil Regional Court
\n21\/09\/2000<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n12\/12\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n26708\/19
\n24\/10\/2019<\/td>\n		Aleksandr Viktorovich IVANOV<\/strong>
\n1956<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Odesa Regional Court
\n19\/02\/1997<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n35936\/19
\n27\/06\/2019<\/td>\n		Volodymyr Volodymyrovych KOSTIN<\/strong>
\n1979<\/td>\n		Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna
\nKharkiv<\/td>\n		Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal
\n17\/05\/2002<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n42966\/19
\n17\/07\/2019<\/td>\n		Demyan Ivanovych STARENKYY<\/strong>
\n1968<\/td>\n		<\/td>\nCourt of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea 26\/01\/2004<\/td>\nSupreme Court of Ukraine
\n21\/07\/2005<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n44910\/19
\n13\/08\/2019<\/td>\n		Oleksandr Stepanovych MELNYCHENKO<\/strong>
\n1972<\/td>\n		Gaydamachenko Tamara Petrivna
\nKyiv<\/td>\n		Lviv Regional Court
\n19\/02\/2001<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n30\/10\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n47458\/19
\n06\/09\/2019<\/td>\n		Aleksandr Ivanovich ZHUCHENKO<\/strong>
\n1959<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Donetsk Regional Court
\n04\/09\/1998<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n21\/10\/1999<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n47468\/19
\n06\/09\/2019<\/td>\n		Aleksandr Levkovich VASALATYY<\/strong>
\n1962<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Zaporizhzhya Regional Court
\n22\/01\/1999<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n48975\/19
\n16\/09\/2019<\/td>\n		Pavel Andreyevich GARKAVENKO<\/strong>
\n1979<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Donetsk Regional Court
\n20\/06\/2000<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n11\/01\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n48985\/19
\n13\/09\/2019<\/td>\n		Valeriy Nikolayevich TISHCHENKO<\/strong>
\n1968<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Kharkiv Regional Court<\/p>\n

26\/05\/2000<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n06\/11\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n59160\/19
\n03\/11\/2019<\/td>\n		Aleksandr Aleksandrovych PASHCHENKO<\/strong>
\n1975<\/td>\n		<\/td>\nRubezhanskiy Town Court of Luhansk Region
\n29\/05\/2012<\/td>\n		Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal
\n16\/11\/2012;
\nHigh Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Cases 23\/09\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n59413\/19
\n30\/10\/2019<\/td>\n		Mykola Oleksandrovych KHOKHLICH<\/strong>
\n1976<\/td>\n		<\/td>\nKhmelnytsk Regional Court
\n09\/02\/1996<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n21\/06\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n60591\/19
\n19\/11\/2019<\/td>\n		Yevgeniy Viktorovich KHLOPONIN<\/strong>
\n1975<\/td>\n		Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
\nStrasbourg<\/td>\n		Donetsk Regional Court
\n30\/12\/1998<\/td>\n		–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n61374\/19
\n12\/11\/2019<\/td>\n		Yelchin Burkhan Ogly AGABALAYEV<\/strong>
\n1974<\/td>\n		<\/td>\nKherson Regional Court of Appeal
\n10\/06\/2008<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n02\/12\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n63910\/19
\n18\/11\/2019<\/td>\n		Valeriy Viktorovich VASILENKO<\/strong>
\n1980<\/td>\n		Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna
\nKharkiv<\/td>\n		Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal
\n24\/11\/2003<\/td>\n		Supreme Court of Ukraine
\n22\/06\/2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n