18431/21;61319/21;25951/22;26115/22;38658/22;45377/22;57758/22

WyrokETPCz2023-11-16ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:1116JUD001843121

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy nieodpowiednie warunki pozbawienia wolności w ukraińskich zakładach karnych oraz brak skutecznych środków odwoławczych w tym zakresie naruszyły art. 3 i 13 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że warunki pozbawienia wolności skarżących były nieodpowiednie, powołując się na swoje ugruntowane orzecznictwo dotyczące art. 3 Konwencji. Wskazał, że poważny brak przestrzeni w celi więziennej (poniżej 3 m² na osadzonego), w połączeniu z innymi niedociągnięciami (takimi jak brak świeżego powietrza, nieodpowiednie warunki higieniczne, brak aktywności fizycznej, złe warunki sanitarne), stanowi poniżające traktowanie. Ponadto Trybunał stwierdził, że skarżący nie mieli do dyspozycji skutecznego środka odwoławczego w odniesieniu do tych skarg, co narusza art. 13 Konwencji. Trybunał nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które skłoniłyby go do odmiennego wniosku niż w podobnych sprawach przeciwko Ukrainie.
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, obywatele Ukrainy, byli przetrzymywani w różnych zakładach karnych na Ukrainie, w tym w Kijowskim Areszcie Śledczym i Areszcie Śledczym nr 4 w Dnieprze. Warunki ich detencji były nieodpowiednie, charakteryzowały się przeludnieniem (często 2.5-2.7 m² na osadzonego), brakiem świeżego powietrza, nieodpowiednimi warunkami higienicznymi, niewystarczającą aktywnością fizyczną na świeżym powietrzu, złą jakością pościeli, brakiem prywatności w toalecie, pleśnią lub brudem w celach, ograniczonym dostępem do prysznica, biernym paleniem oraz złą jakością jedzenia i wody pitnej. Skarżący twierdzili również, że nie mieli skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym w związku z tymi warunkami.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: - Postanawia połączyć skargi; - Uznaje skargi za dopuszczalne; - Stwierdza, że niniejsze skargi ujawniają naruszenie art. 3 i 13 Konwencji w odniesieniu do nieodpowiednich warunków pozbawienia wolności i braku skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym; - Orzeka, że Państwo-Respondent ma zapłacić skarżącym, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, przeliczone na walutę Państwa-Respondenta według kursu obowiązującego w dniu rozliczenia; - Orzeka, że od upływu wyżej wymienionych trzech miesięcy do dnia rozliczenia, od powyższych kwot należne będą odsetki proste według stopy równej krańcowej stopie oprocentowania Europejskiego Banku Centralnego w okresie zwłoki plus trzy punkty procentowe.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF OLIYNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 18431/21 and 6 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 November 2023         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Oliynyk and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Carlo Ranzoni, President,  Lado Chanturia,  María Elósegui, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023, 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. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.  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 5.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 6.  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). 7.  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. 8.  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 applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 9.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If 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.” 12.  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 applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law; 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 16 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni  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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     18431/21 31/03/2021 Oleksandr Volodymyrovych OLIYNYK Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility   06/04/2020 pending   More than 3 years and 5 months 2.5-2.7 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of potable water 7,400     61319/21 08/12/2021 Volodymyr Mykolayovych PEDKO Sosyedko Maksym Oleksandrovych Kyiv Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4   29/11/2019 to 02/03/2023   3 years and 3 months and 3 days 2.5-2.7 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light 7,300     25951/22 28/04/2022 Oleksandr Sergiyovych YEFIMOV Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4   07/09/2018 pending   More than 4 years and 11 months and 30 days 2.6-4.2 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water 7,500     26115/22 28/04/2022 Mykhaylo Viktorovych KNYAZYEV Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4   17/09/2018 pending   More than 4 years and 11 months and 20 days 2.5-3.2 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water 7,500     38658/22 04/07/2022 Volodymyr Eduardovych BOZHATKIN Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4   14/11/2019 pending   More than 3 years and 9 months and 23 days 2.5 - 6.4 m² lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, overcrowding, 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 warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 7,500     45377/22 29/08/2022 Sergiy Olegovych AVRAMENKO Sosyedko Maksym Oleksandrovych Kyiv Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4   17/06/2019 to 07/03/2023   3 years and 8 months and 19 days 2.5 m² poor quality of food, overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, passive smoking 7,500     57758/22 25/11/2022 Illya Vitaliyovych MORGUNENKO Sosyedko Maksym Oleksandrovych Kyiv Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4   06/03/2017 to 26/07/2022   5 years and 4 months and 21 days 2.5 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, passive smoking, poor quality of food 7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło