FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LOPATA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 84210/17 and 23 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lopata and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,
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 under Article 3 about their life sentence with no prospect of release. Some applicants also raised other complaints under other the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. 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 3 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained principally of their life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible de jure and de facto, meaning that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 59-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
8. In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
10. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
11. The Court has examined the applications 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, these complaints 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.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, § 201), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtIvana Jelić
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(life sentence with no prospect of release)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the trial court
Date of the life sentence
Judicial decision upholding the conviction
84210/17
09/12/2017
Stepan Anatolyevich LOPATA
1984
Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna
Kharkiv
Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal
12/12/2006
-
9511/18
03/05/2018
Volodymyr Mykolayovych BALA
1976
Boykova Iryna Anatoliyivna
Kyiv
Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal
08/08/2003
Supreme Court of Ukraine
18/11/2003
21183/18
25/04/2018
Oleksiy Ivanovych ROMANENKO
1976
Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna
Kharkiv
Kherson Regional Court
19/09/1997
-
26008/18
21/04/2018
Nikolay Yevdokimovich SILI
1958
Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych
Kyiv
Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal
28/03/2007
-
38904/18
07/07/2018
Sergey Petrovich KHUKALENKO
1971
Sumy Court of Appeal
23/06/2005
-
41765/18
06/08/2018
Volodymyr Ivanovych PANASENKO
1959
Lviv Regional Court of Appeal
19/09/2008
-
43373/18
01/09/2018
Pakhrudin Mukhtarovich ALIEV
1968
Saypudinova Saykha Omarpashayevna
Saratov
Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
10/02/1997
Supreme Court of Ukraine
15/05/1997
58225/18
05/12/2018
Aleksandr Anatolyevich ROMANENKO
1972
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Kirovsk Regional Court of Dnipropetrovsk
23/02/2017
Supreme Court of Ukraine
05/06/2018
58644/18
10/12/2018
Valeriy Petrovich VODOTOVKA
1960
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Kyiv City Court
01/07/1997
Supreme Court of Ukraine
16/07/1998
59102/18
10/12/2018
Dmitriy Lvovich SILIN
1975
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Kyiv City Court
08/08/2000
Supreme Court of Ukraine
26/04/2001
59271/18
10/12/2018
Sergey Stepanovich MARTSYNKEVICH
1967
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Ternopil Regional Court
21/09/2000
Supreme Court of Ukraine
12/12/2000
26708/19
24/10/2019
Aleksandr Viktorovich IVANOV
1956
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Odesa Regional Court
19/02/1997
-
35936/19
27/06/2019
Volodymyr Volodymyrovych KOSTIN
1979
Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna
Kharkiv
Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal
17/05/2002
-
42966/19
17/07/2019
Demyan Ivanovych STARENKYY
1968
Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea 26/01/2004
Supreme Court of Ukraine
21/07/2005
44910/19
13/08/2019
Oleksandr Stepanovych MELNYCHENKO
1972
Gaydamachenko Tamara Petrivna
Kyiv
Lviv Regional Court
19/02/2001
Supreme Court of Ukraine
30/10/2001
47458/19
06/09/2019
Aleksandr Ivanovich ZHUCHENKO
1959
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Donetsk Regional Court
04/09/1998
Supreme Court of Ukraine
21/10/1999
47468/19
06/09/2019
Aleksandr Levkovich VASALATYY
1962
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Zaporizhzhya Regional Court
22/01/1999
-
48975/19
16/09/2019
Pavel Andreyevich GARKAVENKO
1979
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Donetsk Regional Court
20/06/2000
Supreme Court of Ukraine
11/01/2001
48985/19
13/09/2019
Valeriy Nikolayevich TISHCHENKO
1968
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Kharkiv Regional Court
26/05/2000
Supreme Court of Ukraine
06/11/2001
59160/19
03/11/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovych PASHCHENKO
1975
Rubezhanskiy Town Court of Luhansk Region
29/05/2012
Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal
16/11/2012;
High Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Cases 23/09/2014
59413/19
30/10/2019
Mykola Oleksandrovych KHOKHLICH
1976
Khmelnytsk Regional Court
09/02/1996
Supreme Court of Ukraine
21/06/2000
60591/19
19/11/2019
Yevgeniy Viktorovich KHLOPONIN
1975
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Donetsk Regional Court
30/12/1998
-
61374/19
12/11/2019
Yelchin Burkhan Ogly AGABALAYEV
1974
Kherson Regional Court of Appeal
10/06/2008
Supreme Court of Ukraine
02/12/2008
63910/19
18/11/2019
Valeriy Viktorovich VASILENKO
1980
Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna
Kharkiv
Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal
24/11/2003
Supreme Court of Ukraine
22/06/2004
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy