22971/19;2875/21;38038/21;38194/21;44826/21;44830/21;46178/21;46359/21;49927/21;57533/21;58810/21;58872/21;60258/21;225/22;1938/22;2950/22;6740/22;9944/22;25913/22;26620/22;28074/22;31387/22;50137/22;4416/23;5244/23

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 22971/19 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 August 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kovalenko and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Andreas Zünd, President,  Diana Sârcu,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2025, 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 life sentence with no prospect of release. 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 ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 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. 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 importance 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 Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 59-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 8.  In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2), (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In the leading case of Medvid v. Ukraine (no. 7453/23, 10 October 2024), it further established that such a situation of uncertainty with a lack of any clear and realistic prospects of early release persisted until 3 March 2023 – the date on which the new release on parole mechanism became fully operational and offered the applicants the realistic opportunity to have their life sentences reviewed within the well‑defined timeframe and under clear conditions. 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 the complaints raised by the applicants in the case at hand. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention from the respective dates of the applicants’ final sentencing to life imprisonment (see the appended table) to 3 March 2023. At the same time, the Court finds no violation of Article 3 of the Convention after that date. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 10.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, § 201), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage that may have been sustained by the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the periods of the applicants’ detention between their final sentencing to life imprisonment and 3 March 2023; Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the period after 3 March 2023; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (life sentence with no prospect of release) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the trial court Date of the life sentence Judicial decision upholding the conviction     22971/19 03/04/2019 Oleksandr Petrovych KOVALENKO   Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, 06/10/2008 N/A     2875/21 09/12/2020 Maksym Pavlovych IVANOV   Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy, 18/12/2017 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 27/02/2020     38038/21 20/10/2021 Sergiy Oleksandrovych PANKIV   Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy, 16/06/2020 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 21/04/2021     38194/21 19/07/2021 Volodymyr Volodymyrovych KYRYLENKO Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych Kyiv Kharkiv Regional Court, 21/06/2001 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 15/01/2002     44826/21 01/09/2021 Artur Volodymyrovych OSOKIN Dolzhko Vladyslav Vitaliyovych Kharkiv Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, 12/10/2009 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 11/03/2010     44830/21 05/11/2021 Valeriy Vladimirovich KOZACHENKO   Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, 22/03/2001 Supreme Court of Ukraine,  24/05/2001     46178/21 02/09/2021 Anton Oleksandrovych LISOVYY Dolzhko Vladyslav Vitaliyovych Kharkiv Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, 18/04/2008 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 24/07/2008     46359/21 10/09/2021 Yaroslav Petrovych GALANDZHOVSKYY Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych Kyiv Rivne Regional Court of Appeal, 04/10/2010 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 28/10/2010     49927/21 30/09/2021 Suleyman Seitovych SEYDAMETOV Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, 30/11/2007 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 29/05/2008   57533/21 08/11/2021 Sergiy Anatoliyovych KIRYEYEV Zaporozhets Oles Volodymyrovych Zaporizhzhya Zaporizhzhya Regional Court, 05/02/1999 Supreme Court, 13/05/1999. Death penalty commuted to life sentence by decision of the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court, 16/06/2000   58810/21 23/11/2021 Maksim Sergeyevich PRIDATKO   Donetsk Court of Appeal, 01/04/2020 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 28/04/2021   58872/21 07/04/2006 Constantin Nikolayevich GEMU Kalmykov Taras Oleksandrovych Kharkiv Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, 25/11/2005 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 16/05/2006   60258/21 24/11/2021 Oleg Mykolayovych GERASHCHENKO Zavgorodniy Oleksandr Sergiyovych Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court, 12/02/1997 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 27/05/1997   225/22 03/12/2021 Sergiy Oleksandrovych TRUTEN   Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 17/07/2017 Poltava Court of Appeal, 23/07/2020 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 11/05/2021   1938/22 15/12/2021 Oleksandr Ivanovych SEMENIKHIN   Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 17/12/2003 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 30/03/2004   2950/22 05/01/2022 Valeriy Stanislavovych MELNYKOV   Kyiv City Court of Appeal, 25/01/2012 Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine, 23/04/2013   6740/22 26/01/2022 Vasyl Fedorovych PASTUKH   Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, 26/03/2003 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 08/07/2003   9944/22 09/02/2022 Andriy Stanislavovych NETYAGO   Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, 14/05/2010 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 03/04/2011   25913/22 06/05/2022 Yevgen Oleksiyovych ZAKHAROV Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne Shepetivka Town-District Court of Khmelnytskyy Region, 05/05/2017 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 03/09/2019   26620/22 16/05/2022 Valentyn Gennadiyovych ZEMTSOV   Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, 06/11/2019 Dnipro Court of Appeal, 16/03/2021 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 02/11/2021   28074/22 13/05/2022 Sergiy Sergiyovych GUSHUVATYY Ivanyuk Oleksandr Oktavianovych Chernivtsi Kitsman Distrcit Court of Chernivtsi Region, 21/12/2020 Chernivtsi Court of Appeal of 30/03/2021, Supreme Court of Ukraine, 16/11/2021   31387/22 31/05/2022 Vetcheslav Mykolayovych GOLOVKO Tsyndra Roman Andriyovych Dnipro Saksahansk Regional Court of Kryviy Rig, 22/08/2017 Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal, 23/11/2017, Supreme Court, 02/04/2019   50137/22 12/10/2022 Vitaliy Mykhaylovych PRASLOV   Zhovtnevyi District Court of Kryvyy Rih, 14/05/2012 High Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters, 02/04/2013   4416/23 29/12/2022 Romani Shotayevych KAKHIDZE Tokarchuk Viktoriya Volodymyrivna Odesa Odesa Court of Appeal, 10/12/2021 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 30/09/2022   5244/23 29/12/2022 Vyacheslav Mykolayovych KOVALENKO Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Kyiv Court of Appeal, 12/02/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 06/05/2004