LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF BOLDYRYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - [Ukrainian Translation] by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
Doc ref: 19957/21;20534/21;28310/21;28762/21;29368/21;29585/21;30459/21;32369/21;36609/21 • ECHR ID: 001-219572
Document date: October 6, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
CASE OF BOLDYRYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - [Ukrainian Translation] by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
Doc ref: 19957/21;20534/21;28310/21;28762/21;29368/21;29585/21;30459/21;32369/21;36609/21 • ECHR ID: 001-219572
Document date: October 6, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BOLDYRYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 19957/21 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Boldyryev and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 February 2022,
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
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
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, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
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.
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. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
10. 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.”
11. 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 THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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
19957/21
16/03/2021
Valeriy Volodymyrovych BOLDYRYEV
1973Gorbachevska Tamara Igorivna
Kharkiv
Court of Appeal of Odesa Region, 14/12/2009
Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine in Civil and Criminal Matters, 10/07/2012 and 01/10/2013
20534/21
08/04/2021
Vitaliy Mykolayovych LUKASHUK
1979Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych
Kyiv
Court of Appeal of Kyiv Region, 03/11/2003
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 04/03/2004
28310/21
27/05/2021
Oleksandr Anatoliyovych ROGULYOV
1965Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych
Kyiv
Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 15/11/2002
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 06/05/2003
28762/21
28/05/2021
Ruslan Grygorovych SOTNYKOV
1977Dolzhko Vladyslav Vitaliyovych
Kharkiv
Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region,
22/11/2001
Supreme Court of Ukraine,
14/05/2002
29368/21
27/05/2021
Sergiy Ivanovych
DERKACH
1968Lushpenko Dmytro Sergiyovych
Kryvyy Rig
Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court,
14/11/2000
Supreme Court of Ukraine,
16/01/2001
29585/21
14/05/2021
Oleksandr Yevgeniyovych MAKSYMYKHIN
1985Chernihiv Court of Appeal, 09/08/2004
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 16/11/2004
30459/21
05/06/2021
Vadim Vladimirovich TROKHIMCHUK
1990Kupiansk Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 04/12/2017
Kharkiv Court of Appeal, 08/11/2018
Supreme Court of Ukraine,17/03/2020
32369/21
11/06/2021
Viktor Igorovych
SAYENKO
1988Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, 10/02/2009
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 24/11/2009
36609/21
07/07/2021
Vasyl Petrovych
GAYDAY
1962Kyiv Court of Appeal, 25/01/2012
Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court, 23/04/2013
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
