16153/23;18430/23;34493/23;38120/23;38122/23;41092/23

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MARTYSHCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 16153/23 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Martyshchenko and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Sârcu, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 7.  The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ 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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 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 “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012). 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. 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. In particular, the Court observes that, in reply to a prima facie case of inadequate conditions of detention, complained of by the applicants, the Government have failed to provide any primary evidence showing cell floor plans and the actual number of inmates during the specific periods of the applicants’ detention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 123, and, for example, Sparysh and Kutsmand v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 49709/18 and 49870/18, 12 September 2024). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate. 10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  In application no. 41092/23, 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 35 § 3 (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 the case set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.  In application no. 16153/23, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 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. It follows that this part of application no. 16153/23 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Sukachov, cited above, §§ 165 and 167), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 16153/23 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]     16153/23 01/04/2023 Roman Oleksandrovych MARTYSHCHENKO   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Ladyzhyn Detention Facility no. 39 08/12/2021 pending More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s) 2.15-4.15 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light   6,500     18430/23 18/04/2023 Vitaliy Mykolayovych KUKHARCHUK   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Horodyshche Detention Facility 16/01/2021 pending More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 25 day(s) 3.8 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light   7,500     34493/23 20/08/2023 Pavlo Sergiyovych AKSYONOV   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Poltava Detention Facility no. 23 06/11/2020 to 20/04/2023 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 15 day(s) 2.5 - 3 m² overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to potable water   5,800     38120/23 10/10/2023 Amet Navruzovych NUROV   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Ladyzhyn Pre-Trial Detention Facility no. 39 29/05/2007 to 12/04/2024 16 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 15 day(s) 3.7 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   7,500     38122/23 10/10/2023 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SUKACHOV   Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Ladyzhyn Pre-Trial Detention Facility no. 39 28/07/2022 to 12/04/2024 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 day(s) 3.7 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   3,700     41092/23 09/11/2023 Roman Mykolayovych SOLOVEY   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Poltava Detention Facility no. 23 08/05/2020 to 29/11/2023 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22 day(s) 2.7 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 06/05/2020 - 29/11/2023, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 06/05/2020 - pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021)   9,800     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.