FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF LEBEDYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 33994\/20 and 7 others \u2013see 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 Lebedyev 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 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 de jure and de 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\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 practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and\u00a0Others\u00a0v.\u00a0the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069\/09 and 2\u00a0others, \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. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 10. 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 11. 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 applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that they disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention 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 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 23\/10\/2020<\/td>\n 1972<\/td>\n Zaporizhzhya<\/td>\n 11\/09\/2020<\/td>\n 1965<\/td>\n Zhytomyr<\/td>\n 28\/08\/2020<\/td>\n 1986<\/td>\n Kharkiv<\/td>\n 19\/10\/2020<\/td>\n 1976<\/td>\n Kharkiv<\/td>\n 19\/10\/2020<\/td>\n 1967<\/td>\n Kyiv<\/td>\n 11\/11\/2020<\/td>\n 1971<\/td>\n Kyiv<\/td>\n 10\/11\/2020<\/td>\n 1962<\/td>\n Kyiv<\/td>\n 11\/11\/2020<\/td>\n 1969<\/td>\n Kyiv<\/td>\n
\nJovan Ilievski,
\nMattias Guyomar, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy 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 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 33994\/20<\/p>\n Gennadiy Kostyantynovych LEBEDYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Zaporozhets Oles Volodymyrovych<\/p>\n Tokmakskyy Local Court of Zaporizhzhya Region, 07\/03\/2013<\/td>\n Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine, 28\/08\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 42293\/20<\/p>\n Gennadiy Volodymyrovych BURYAK<\/strong><\/p>\n Kashapova Viktoriya Oleksiyivna<\/p>\n Kharkiv Regional Court, 14\/06\/2001<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 25\/12\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 43795\/20<\/p>\n Sergiy Volodymyrovych YEVGLEVSKYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna<\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Donetsk Region, 12\/03\/2010<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 30\/09\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 47659\/20<\/p>\n Ruslan Viktorovych MALAKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna<\/p>\n Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, 31\/07\/2007<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 50826\/20<\/p>\n Vitaliy Viktorovych CHAYKOVSKYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Fedash Mykola Mykolayovych<\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Donetsk Region, 06\/10\/2005<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 19\/10\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 53207\/20<\/p>\n Oleksandr Vitaliyovych KAMATSKYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych<\/p>\n Court of Appeal of Lviv Region, 25\/07\/2008<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 23\/12\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 53345\/20<\/p>\n Vasyl Volodymyrovych KOVAL<\/strong><\/p>\n Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych<\/p>\n Sevastopol Court of Appeal, 26\/11\/2001<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 05\/09\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 53677\/20<\/p>\n Yan Mykhaylovych GORDIYCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych<\/p>\n Sevastopol City Court of Appeal, 03\/12\/2002<\/td>\n Supreme Court of Ukraine, 17\/04\/2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n