FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 53152\/16 and 8 others \u2013 see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n22 July 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Krupko and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President, Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2021,<\/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 of the Convention of their life sentence with no prospect of release.<\/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 the 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\u00a0balance 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\u00a0importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the\u00a0practice 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, 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. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 10. In application no.\u00a053152\/16, the applicant 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 application 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 and the remainder of application no.\u00a053152\/16 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the\u00a0Convention concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release;<\/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 22 July 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\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 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of the life sentence<\/strong><\/td>\n 22\/08\/2016<\/td>\n 1985<\/td>\n Kharkiv<\/td>\n 11\/03\/2020<\/td>\n 1968<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 01\/06\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 13\/04\/2020<\/td>\n 1981<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 25\/08\/2015<\/td>\n 01\/10\/2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 18\/04\/2020<\/td>\n 1968<\/td>\n Kharkiv<\/td>\n 19\/03\/2020<\/td>\n 1964<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 18\/05\/2020<\/td>\n 1978<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Kharkiv Zhovtnevyy Local Court, 15\/06\/2012<\/p>\n Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine, 17\/12\/2013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 25\/08\/2020<\/td>\n 1960<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 04\/12\/1995<\/td>\n 28\/03\/1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/09\/2020<\/td>\n 1965<\/td>\n Kharkiv<\/td>\n 15\/08\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/09\/2020<\/td>\n 1971<\/td>\n Kharkiv<\/td>\n 28\/10\/2004<\/td>\n 24\/02\/2005<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nJovan Ilievski,
\nMattias Guyomar, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\n\u00a7\u00a7\u00a059-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).<\/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 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(life sentence with no prospect of release)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n Name of the trial court<\/strong><\/p>\n Judicial decision upholding the conviction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 53152\/16<\/p>\n Dmytro Volodymyrovych KRUPKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna<\/p>\n Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 21\/11\/2014<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 13\/04\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 15038\/20<\/p>\n Mykola Mykolayovych SAVCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Vinnytsya Regional Court, 10\/11\/1999<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine,<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 18704\/20<\/p>\n Volodymyr Mykolayovych NAGORNYY<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy,<\/p>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine,<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 20048\/20<\/p>\n Andriy Andriyovych ZHENCHAK<\/strong><\/p>\n Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna<\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Donetsk Region, 02\/04\/2007<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 21328\/20<\/p>\n Yevgen Valeriyovych BAKLINSKYY<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 13\/08\/2001<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 22\/01\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 22697\/20<\/p>\n Ruslan Volodymyrovych OLIYNYK<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Belgorod Regional Court of the Russian Federation, 12\/05\/\/1998<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 04\/08\/1998<\/p>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 42238\/20<\/p>\n Igor Yevgenovych TRUBITSIN<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kirovograd Regional Court<\/p>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine<\/p>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 42269\/20<\/p>\n Valeriy Ivanovych RYABININ<\/strong><\/p>\n Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna<\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 20\/02\/2006<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine,<\/p>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 42299\/20<\/p>\n Vitaliy Viktorovych MARCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna<\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Zaporizhzhya Region,<\/p>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine,<\/p>\n