Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF KRYKLYVYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 2335/21;9575/21;11426/21;28323/21 • ECHR ID: 001-222923

Document date: February 9, 2023

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 3

CASE OF KRYKLYVYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 2335/21;9575/21;11426/21;28323/21 • ECHR ID: 001-222923

Document date: February 9, 2023

Cited paragraphs only

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KRYKLYVYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 2335/21 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 February 2023

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

In the case of Kryklyvyy and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Mārtiņš Mits , President , Mattias Guyomar, Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 January 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 applicants were represented by Mr A.V. Pustyntsev, a lawyer practising in Dnipro.

3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 2335/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

13. In application no. 2335/21, the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021).

14. 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.”

15. 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,

(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 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits

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

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 and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

2335/21

17/12/2020

Andriy Mykolayovych KRYKLYVYY

1998Cherkasy Pre-Trial Detention Facility

13/10/2017

to 05/11/2021

4 years and 24 days

1.84-3.7 m²

Overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 12/10/2017 - 10/09/2021 before 1 level of jurisdiction.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.

9,800

9575/21

29/01/2021

Oleksandr Olegovych MOMOTOK

1998Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4

14/08/2018

pending

More than 4 years and 3 months and 3 days

4.3 m²

Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, poor quality of food.

7,500

11426/21

09/02/2021

Yaroslav Anatoliyovych KOLESNIKOV

1992Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4

29/01/2018

pending

More than 4 years and 9 months and 19 days

3.1-4.3 m²

Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell.

7,500

28323/21

21/05/2021

Sergiy Oleksandrovych SUKHINICH

1971Zhytomyr Detention Facility no. 8

26/05/2017 to

22/11/2021

4 years and 5 months and 28 days

05/08/2022

pending

More than 3 months and 18 days

2.5-4.8 m²

Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light.

7,500

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

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255