Information Note on the Court’s case-law 236

January 2020

Sukachov v. Ukraine - 14057/17

Judgment 30.1.2020 [Section V]

Article 46

General measures (pilot judgment)

Respondent State required to reduce prison overcrowding, improve conditions of detention and introduce preventive and compensatory remedies

Facts – Before the Court, the applicant mainly complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention and about a lack of an effective remedy in that regard.

Law – The Court unanimously found a breach of Article 3 as well as a breach of Article 13.

Article 46: The violations identified in the present case had been found fourteen years after the Court’s first judgment concerning conditions of detention in Ukraine. And around 120 prima facie meritorious applications were currently pending before the Court. The origins of the violations had concerned problems of overcrowding and various other recurrent issues related to the material conditions of detention. In a number of those judgments the Court had also concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13. It was therefore appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in the present case.

(a) Measures to reduce overcrowding and improve conditions of detention – The most appropriate solution to the problem of overcrowding would be to reduce the number of detainees by more frequent use of non-custodial measures and by minimising the recourse to pre-trial detention.

Ukrainian prosecutors and other law-enforcement officers should be encouraged to further decrease the number of requests they made for initial detention and for its extension, except in the most serious cases. Prosecutors and judges should also be encouraged to use alternatives to detention as widely as possible.

Reduction in overcrowding in the SIZOs (prisons) would also follow from a change in the current minimum domestic standard of 2.5 square metres of personal space per detainee provided for by law.

Despite the Respondent State’s efforts, the material conditions in the SIZOs remained poor or had even deteriorated. In view of the extent of the problem at issue, consistent and long-term efforts and the adoption of further measures aimed at major renovation work in the existing detention facilities, or at replacing obsolete or conserved facilities with new ones should continue without delay; appropriate funds should be set aside for this purpose.

(b) Effective remedies

(i) Preventive measures – The best way of putting in place a preventive remedy would be to set up a special authority to supervise detention facilities. Such an authority should be entitled to monitor breaches of detainees’ rights, be independent from the penal authorities, have the power and duty to investigate complaints with the participation of the complainant, and be capable of rendering binding and enforceable decisions indicating appropriate redress. Such a procedure may be set up before the existing authorities, for instance public prosecutors. If the respondent State eventually chose to comply with this judgment by amending the procedure for complaining to a prosecutor, the procedure should comply with the principles set out in the judgment.

(ii) Compensatory measures – One form of compensation might consist in reducing the sentence of the person concerned proportionately in relation to each day that he or she had spent in inadequate conditions of detention. Such a remedy could only concern persons who were still incarcerated. However, a reduction of their sentence could only constitute adequate and sufficient redress for them if it entailed an acknowledgement of the breach of Article 3 of the Convention and provided measurable reparation of that breach.

Another form of compensation could be the provision of monetary compensation, the only option possible for persons who were no longer in detention. As to the elements relevant for assessing the extent of the damage, the time spent by a detainee in poor conditions was the most important factor. Lastly, a compensatory remedy must be exercised retrospectively, in the sense of providing redress in respect of breaches of Article 3 that pre-date its introduction.

(iii) Time-limit for making the preventive and compensatory remedies available – In view of the persisting and long-lasting nature of the structural problem identified in the present case and of the apparent absence of any concrete solution to the problem being currently considered at the domestic level, a specific time-limit should be set and the required preventive and compensatory remedies be made available no later than eighteen months after this judgment becomes final.

(c) Procedure to be followed in other similar cases – The Court did not find it appropriate at this juncture to adjourn the examination of similar cases, whether pending or impending.

Article 41: Finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in regard to Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3; EUR 9,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from a breach of Article 3.

(See the Factsheets on Pilot judgments and Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes