8625/24;13103/24;21738/24;36370/24;36503/24;906/25;911/25;1579/25;4437/25;4601/25;4929/25;8743/25;10186/25;11582/25

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KYSELYOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 8625/24 and 13 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kyselyov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Vahe Grigoryan, Sébastien Biancheri, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 June 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article34 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 (“theGovernment”) 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 and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In applications nos.1579/25, 4437/25 and 11582/25 the 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 ARTICLES3 AND13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles3 and13 of the Convention. 7.The Government submitted that some applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as they had not sought compensation before the civil courts for damage allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate conditions of detention. However, the Court has found that a compensatory remedy is effective only once the unsatisfactory conditions of detention have ended (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, § 113, 30 January 2020). In the present case, the Government did not indicate that the applicants had been transferred, released, or that the conditions of their detention had improved before they lodged their applications with the Court. The objection must therefore be rejected. 8.The Court further 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, Muršićv.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 Article3 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, 10January 2012). 9.In the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006) and Sukachov (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.The Court also refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of-detention cases (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 127-28). In particular, in reply to a prima facie case of ill-treatment, complained of by the applicants, the Government is expected to provide 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). Other documents and photographs, related to air, food, water quality control, pest control, temperature and luminosity measurements, bathing facilities, privacy of toilet, laundry services, etc., should pertain to cells and periods of the applicants’ detention. 11.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 during the period indicated in the appended table were inadequate. 12.The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 13.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 14.In applications nos.1579/25, 4437/25 and 11582/25, the applicants 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 Article35§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 cases set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.In applications nos.13103/24, 36503/24 and 8743/25, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 16.The Court has examined the applications 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 Articles34 and35 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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article35§4 of the Convention. 17.Furthermore, in application no. 8743/25 the applicant complained about constant surveillance in the same detention facility. Having regard to the facts of the case, the available material in the case file, and its findings above, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of the case, it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine that complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.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 described in the appended table, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of detention 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 the complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention in applications nos.13103/24, 36503/24 and 8743/25 inadmissible, and holdsthat it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint in application no. 8743/25 about constant surveillance in the same detention facility; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles3 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 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; 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 25 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and3 of the Rules of Court. {signature_p_1}{signature_p_2} Viktoriya MaradudinaAndreas Zünd Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident 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] 8625/24 26/02/2024 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych KYSELYOV Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych Dnipro Vinnytsia Detention Facility no.1 25/11/2022 to 26/02/2024 1 year(s) and 3month(s) and 2day(s) - overcrowding (save for some unspecified periods of detention in cells with more than 4 sq. m of personal space), passive smoking, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance, 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, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air 3,700 - 13103/24 06/05/2024 Valeriy Anatoliyovych RUDAS Preobrazhenska Oksana Volodymyrivna Strasbourg Vinnytsya Detention Facility no.1 21/01/2013 pending More than 13year(s) and 3month(s) and 17day(s) - Overcrowding (save for some unspecified periods of detention in cells with more than 4 sq. m of personal space), lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture 7,500 - 21738/24 17/07/2024 Oleksandr Grygorovych TUZ Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 26/03/2020 to 25/03/2025 5 year(s) 1.2-2.5 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, lack of privacy for toilet, insufficient number of sleeping places, applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of toiletries 7,500 - 36370/24 02/12/2024 Maksym Sergiyovych POZNIKHIRENKO Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 03/05/2022 pending More than 4year(s) and 5day(s) 2.5-2.8 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food 7,500 - 36503/24 02/12/2024 Volodymyr Sergiyovych AKHINYAN Preobrazhenska Oksana Volodymyrivna Strasbourg Zhytomyr Detention Facility No 8 27/08/2010 pending More than 15year(s) and 8month(s) and 11day(s) 2.9-4.5 m² Overcrowding (except for the period of one year and eight months, no exact dates provided), lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, constant electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities 7,500 - 906/25 13/12/2024 Maksym Oleksandrovych VASYLYEV Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych Kryvyy Rig Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 20/02/2024 pending More than 2year(s) and 2month(s) and 18day(s) 2.6 m² overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature 5,300 - 911/25 13/12/2024 Oleksandr Ivanovych BRATSKYY Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych Kryvyy Rig Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 20/02/2024 pending More than 2year(s) and 2month(s) and 18day(s) 2.6 m² infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen 5,300 - 1579/25 30/12/2024 Volodymyr Volodymyrovych BOYKO Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych Kryvyy Rig Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 14/09/2021 pending More than 4year(s) and 7month(s) and 24day(s) 2.5-2.75 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 14/09/2021 - pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v.Ukraine, no.15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1July 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, 1July 2021) 9,800 - 4437/25 01/02/2025 Yevgen Volodymyrovych LOGINOV Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 13/07/2020 pending More than 5year(s) and 9month(s) and 25day(s) 2.5-3.5 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 12/07/2020 - pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no.15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1July 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, 1July 2021) 9,800 - 4601/25 01/02/2025 Roman Vasylyovych KVAK Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 22/01/2021 to 21/07/2025 4 year(s) and 6month(s) 2.5-2.8 m² overcrowding, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet 7,500 - 4929/25 07/02/2025 Sergiy Anatoliyovych GNATENKO Preobrazhenska Oksana Volodymyrivna Strasbourg Zhytomyr Detention Facility no.8 05/09/2001 pending More than 24year(s) and 8month(s) and 3day(s) 2.7 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell 7,500 - 8743/25 11/03/2025 Andriy Volodymyrovych PURDES Denysenko Yuriy Oleksandrovych Kyiv Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 18/11/2017 pending More than 8year(s) and 5month(s) and 20day(s) - overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, lack of privacy for toilet 7,500 - 10186/25 21/03/2025 Olena Viktorivna MALTSEVA Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych Kryvyy Rig Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 17/02/2023 pending More than 3year(s) and 2month(s) and 21day(s) 2.6 m² overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water 7,100 - 11582/25 04/03/2025 Ivan Petrovych MYKYTENKO Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 24/05/2021 pending More than 4year(s) and 11month(s) and 14day(s) 2.5-2.6 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, passive smoking, poor quality of potable water Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 21/05/2021 - 25/03/2025, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§77-81, 10February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§38-42, 15December 2016), Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 21/05/2021 - pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no.15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1July 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, 1July 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.