FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 30722/21 and 2 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 May 2023

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

In the case of Pavlov 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 6 April 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 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. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

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 lack of an effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

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, Muršić 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 Muršić , 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 described 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. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

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.

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

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 11 May 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

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]

30722/21

05/06/2021

Dmytro Yuriyovych PAVLOV

1985Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych

Dnipro

Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4

24/02/2020 to

25/02/2021

1 year and 2 days

11/03/2021

to

07/04/2021

28 days

2.6 m²

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

3,200

38250/21

19/07/2021

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych MALYSHKO

1988Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych

Limoges

Zaporizhzhya Pre ‑ Trial Detention Facility

12/01/2021

to

22/01/2021

11 days

Zaporizhzhya Pre ‑ Trial Detention Facility

23/02/2021

to

02/06/2021

3 months and 11 days

Zaporizhzhya Pre ‑ Trial Detention Facility

09/09/2021

to

04/11/2021

1 month and 27 days

Zaporizhzhya Pre ‑ Trial Detention Facility

26/11/2021

to

07/12/2021

12 days

2.7 m²

2.7 m²

2.7 m²

2.7 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries

2,000

3587/22

05/11/2021

Yevgen Igorovych KONDRATENKO

1992Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych

Dnipro

Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility

11/04/2013

to

10/05/2021

8 years and 1 month

2.5-4.4 m²

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

7,500

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