FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF VITKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 42758/15 and 5 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 February 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Vitko 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 20 January 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 inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

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 principally 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, which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

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, MurÅ¡ić 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 MurÅ¡ić , 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as 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.

12. In applications nos. 8818/21 and 9443/21 the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to additional periods of their detention.

13. 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, they 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.

14. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

15. 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.”

16. 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.

17. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

nature_p_1}

Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov 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]

42758/15

13/08/2015

Denis Aleksandrovich VITKO

1991Dnipro Pre-Trial Detention Facility

15/12/2007

to

28/11/2016

8 years and 11 months and 14 days

2.5 m²

lack of fresh air, overcrowding, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to shower

7,500

53155/20

25/11/2020

Andriy Sergiyovych GALKA

1983Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych

Limoges

Dnipro Pre-Trial Detention Facility

01/10/2020

to

22/01/2021

3 months and 22 days

2.3-2.7 m²

lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen

1,300

8399/21

02/02/2021

Mykhaylo Isakovych LAFER

1969Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych

Limoges

Dnipro Penitentiary Facility no. 4

03/09/2019

pending

More than 2 years and 3 months and 13 days

2.91 - 3.1 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of fresh air

5,500

8818/21

28/01/2021

Maksym Romanovych PEREVOZNYUK

1986Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

Pyatykhatky

Vinnytsya Penitentiary Facility No. 1

05/09/2015

to

29/12/2020

5 years and 3 months and 20 days, excluding the period from 18/01/2018 to 22/01//2018

Vinnytsya Penitentiary Facility No. 1

09/01/2021 to

26/02/2021

1 month and 18 days

2.5-2.7 m²

2.7 m²

lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, poor quality of food;

lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, poor quality of food

7,500

9443/21

27/01/2021

Yevgeniy Volodymyrovych SURKOV

1984Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

Pyatykhatky

Vinnytsya Pre ‑ Trial Detention Facility

23/04/2019

to

19/05/2021

2 years and 27 days

2.3 m²

passive smoking, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air

5,000

9753/21

28/01/2021

Maksym Anatoliyovych RACHUK

1981Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

Pyatykhatky

Vinnytsya Penitentiary Facility no. 1

30/10/2017

to

23/11/2020

3 years and 25 days

3.6 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food

6,800

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.