FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GOLOVATYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 28662/20 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 December 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Golovatyuk 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 25 November 2021,
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. In applications nos. 55869/20 and 10805/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION6. 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, 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, 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 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.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. In applications nos. 55869/20 and 10805/21, the applicants 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 Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021), related to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. The Court further 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,
Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds(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 16 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
28662/20
25/05/2020
Gennadiy Valeriyovych GOLOVATYUK
1974
Pogibko Oleksandr Olegovych
Odesa
Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Facility
09/07/2019
pending
More than 2 years and 3 months and 28 days
1.73 - 3.02 m²
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, poor quality of food
5,500
55869/20
05/12/2020
Vyacheslav Viktorovych TROKHYMENKO
1983
Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych
Limoges
Dnipro Detention Facility no.4
02/04/2018
to
04/08/2020
2 years and 4 months and 3 days
2.7 m²
lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to shower
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings – since 10/10/2017 – pending, 4 years and 5 days, 1 level of jurisdiction,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
7,300
8671/21
28/01/2021
Stanislav Sergiyovych ILKIV
1983
Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych
Pyatykhatky
Mykolayiv Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
10/02/2019
to
02/12/2020
1 year and 9 months and 23 days
2.67 - 5.01m²
lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower
4,600
8985/21
28/01/2021
Igor Maksutovych ZHASPAYEV
1964
Vavrenyuk Oleksandr Volodymyrovych
Pyatykhatky
Vinnytsya Detention Facility no.1
05/07/2019
pending
More than 2 years and 4 months and 1 day
2.3 m²
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 toiletries, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, poor quality of food
5,600
9232/21
28/01/2021
Pavel Olegovych SHUSTOV
1984
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro
Mykolayiv Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
06/02/2017
to
27/11/2020
3 years and 9 months and 22 days
2.69 - 5.02 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light
7,500
9573/21
29/01/2021
Vladyslav Oleksandrovych CHENTSOV
1968
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro
Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4
11/01/2017
pending
More than 4 years and 9 months and 26 days
2.5 m²
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of 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, overcrowding, poor quality of food
7,500
9984/21
12/02/2021
Valentyn Sergiyovych TROTSKYY
1988
Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych
Limoges
Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility
25/08/2019
to
12/10/2020
1 year and 1 month and 18 days
1.4-2.6 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
3,400
10801/21
08/02/2021
Rostyslav Oleksandrovych SAVIN
1994
Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych
Dnipro
Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4
15/01/2016
to
17/12/2020
4 years and 11 months and 3 days
2.6-3.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower
7,500
10805/21
31/01/2021
Vitaliy Mykolayovych GNATENKO
1981
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro
Mykolayiv Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
08/09/2014
to
29/07/2021
6 years and 10 months and 22 days
2.6 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, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - since 04/09/2014-pending before 1 instance,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
9,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.