The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Bilyy v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov, President, Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in two 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\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He also raised other complaints under 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 ARTICLES\u00a03 AND\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read 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 Article 13<\/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. The 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 law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 42525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 149-59, 10 January 2012).<\/p>\n 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.<\/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. 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. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 12. 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 84-87, 10 February 2011), Kotiy v.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a028718\/09, \u00a7 55, 5 March 2015), G.B. and Others v.\u00a0Turkey (no. 4633\/15, \u00a7 176, 17 October 2019), and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 40-47, 15 December 2016).<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 13. In application no.\u00a011356\/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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, they 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 V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 15. Article\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 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Sukachov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 165 and 167), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. It rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant in application no. 11356\/17.<\/p>\n 17. The 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. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible\u00a0and the remainder of application no.\u00a011356\/17 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles\u00a03 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that 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) that 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 6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction in application no 11356\/17.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 January 2022, 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 L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF BILYY v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 11356\/17 and 45420\/19)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 January 2022<\/p>\n
\nLado Chanturia,
\nArnfinn B\u00e5rdsen, 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\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n