FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF CHEBOTAR v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 3790/21 and 42948/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 July 2023

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

In the case of Chebotar v. Ukraine,

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

Carlo Ranzoni, President , Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in two 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 applicant was represented by Mr S.O. Kulbach, a lawyer practising in Limoges, France.

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

THE FACTS

4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the applications are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He 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 applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of an effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

8. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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).

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 applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate.

11. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his 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. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.

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 applicant, 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 20 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni 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

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses

(in euros) [2]

3790/21

31/12/2020

Ruslan Volodymyrovych CHEBOTAR

1979Dnipro Detention Facility no.4

04/05/2020

Pending

More than 3 years and 1 month and 4 days

3.6 m²

Overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - since 25/04/2020 - pending – no individual assessment of the grounds for the applicant’s prolonged detention; no examination of individualised risks, standard formulas used for the extension of the detention; (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011 and Ignatov v. Ukraine , no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016)

9,100

250

42948/21

17/08/2021

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

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