FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LABUDYAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 60928/12 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Labudyak and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
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 unlawful detention. In application no. 31302/14, the applicant 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 ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention6. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 1
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;”
7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references).
8. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to the national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with the national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references).
9. The Court found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading cases set out in the appended table.
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’ detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
11. These complaints as set out in the appended table are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 138, ECHR 2014 (extracts), Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 127, 4 July 2019 and Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020.
Remaining complaint13. As to the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in application no. 31302/14, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the application. It thus considers that the complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on it (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and, for example, Minayev and Korzh v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 82724/17 and 40291/18, § 11, 16 December 2021).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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, Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, 29 January 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicants and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants in applications nos. 31302/14 and 14665/20.
16. 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 Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention;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);Decides that there is no need to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention raised in application no. 31302/14; 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 31302/14 and 14665/20.Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of unlawful detention
Specific defects
Relevant domestic decision
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
60928/12
10/09/2012
Ivan Mykhaylovych LABUDYAK
1974
Slabenko Sergiy Ivanovych
Lutsk
07/04/2012
to
29/11/2012
detention not covered by any judicial order (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 70-72, 10 February 2011), decision on detention without a time-limit (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 74-76, 10 February 2011)
Lutsk Court’s decision of 25/04/2012
1,800
250
31302/14
11/04/2014
Yevgen Mykolayovych BAKULIN
1956
Telychenko Valentyna Vasylivna
Kyiv
21/03/2014
to
23/03/2014
no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020)
arrest report of 21/03/2014
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was held in a metal cage during the hearing before the Kyiv Pecherskyy District Court, which lasted from about 9 p.m. on 22/03/2014 to about 4.30 a.m. on 23/03/2014 and during which the issue of his detention as a pre-trial security measure was examined. According to him, he was ill and tired, had no possibility to use the toilet and felt humiliated because of his confinement in a cage.
The Court has held that holding a person in a metal cage during a trial – having regard to its objectively degrading nature, which is incompatible with the standards of civilised behaviour that are the hallmark of a democratic society – constitutes in itself an affront to human dignity in breach of Article 3 (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 138, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). The above conclusion remains pertinent in the circumstances of the present case. Furthermore, the Court has emphasised that conducting judicial hearings at night can be justified only in cases of particular urgency (see Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 127, 4 July 2019). No such urgency existed in the present case, and it must have been tiring and stressful for the applicant to stay in the court room until 4.30 a.m.;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention from 24/03/2014 to 28/04/2014 - According to the applicant, he had 2.24 sq. m of personal space in one cell and 3.75 sq. m in another cell. According to the Government, those figures were 2.85 sq. m and 5.15 sq. m respectively. The applicant also alleged that the toilet, which was not separated from the living area, had been extremely dirty, there had been no access to drinking water, and the possibility to take shower had been provided to inmates only once per week. While the Government contested those allegations, they submitted three colour photographs of the applicant’s cell showing, in particular, that the toilet was only partly separated from the living space and appeared dilapidated and filthy. Therefore, the Government failed to rebut the applicant’s account.
2,340
250
26486/15
20/05/2015
Oleg Vasylyovych SHKURDAY
1964
Sytsevoy Valeriy Vasylyovych
Kyiv
20/11/2014 to 24/11/2014
delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters, 20/11/2014
1,800
250
51110/17
11/07/2017
Viktor Oleksiyovych RYZHEVOL
1939
Gotin Oleksandr Mykolayovych
Kyiv
30/03/2017 to
20/06/2017
delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
1,800
250
36139/18
20/07/2018
Nataliya Borysivna DMITRICHENKO
1978
Dulskyy Oleksandr Leonidovych
Kyiv
23/01/2018
to
24/01/2018
no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020)
arrest report of 23/01/2018
1,800
250
14665/20
27/02/2020
Vasyl Mykhaylovych GOYZAN
1994
Shkorka Igor Mykhaylovych
Uzhgorod
29/08/2019 to
30/08/2019
delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
Zakarpattya Court of Appeal, 29/08/2019
1,800
250
20097/21
05/04/2021
Oleksandr Sergiyovych SHKUTENKO
1987
Revyakin Maksym Oleksandrovych
Kharkiv
10/09/2020 to
08/10/2020
delayed release (Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2015)
Dnipro Court of Appeal 10/09/2020
1,800
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.