FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF OZHOG AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 50418/22 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 May 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ozhog and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. 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 FACTS3. 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 some applications they 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 that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
7. The Government submitted that some applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as they had not sought compensation before the civil courts for damage allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate conditions of detention. However, the Court has found that a compensatory remedy is effective only once the unsatisfactory conditions of detention have ended (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, § 113, 30 January 2020). In the present case, the Government did not indicate that the applicants had been transferred, released, or that the conditions of their detention had improved before they lodged their applications with the Court. The objection must therefore be rejected.
8. The Government also referred to legislative amendments adopted in November 2024, which introduced a preventive remedy in the form of a special commission empowered to examine detainees’ complaints regarding inadequate material conditions of detention and to order their improvement or the detainee’s transfer. However, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that this remedy had become effective in practice, in particular, by showing that the commissions had started functioning and had produced any results in addressing complaints similar to those in the present case. Therefore, this non-exhaustion plea must likewise be rejected.
9. The Court further 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).
10. In the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006) and Sukachov (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. The Court also refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of-detention cases (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 127-28). In particular, in reply to a prima facie case of ill-treatment, complained of by the applicants, the Government is expected to provide primary evidence showing cell floor plans and the actual number of inmates during the specific periods of the applicants’ detention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 123, and, for example, Sparysh and Kutsmand v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 49709/18 and 49870/18, 12 September 2024). Other documents and photographs, related to air, food, water quality control, pest control, temperature and luminosity measurements, bathing facilities, privacy of toilet, laundry services, etc., should pertain to cells and periods of the applicants’ detention.
12. 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 during the period indicated in the appended table were inadequate.
13. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW15. In application no. 50418/22, 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 case set out in the appended table.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS16. In applications nos. 36671/24 and 14269/25, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions.
17. 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 applications nos. 36671/24 and 14269/25 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION18. 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 36671/24 and 14269/25 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds 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; 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 13 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
50418/22
22/10/2022
Vitaliy Ruslanovych OZHOG
1990
Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych
Limoges
Dnipro Detention Facility
16/01/2017 to
21/02/2023
6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)
2.7-3.7 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of toiletries
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - from 11/01/2017 to 24/01/2023,
2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021)
9,800
8500/24
01/01/2024
Oleksandr Volodymyrovych SHUMILIN
1987
Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych
Dnipro
Kryvyy Rih Detention Facility no. 3
25/10/2023 to
26/02/2024
4 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell
1,500
36671/24
07/12/2024
Ruslan Petrovych SYDORENKO
1975
Preobrazhenska Oksana Volodymyrivna
Strasbourg
Zhytomyr Detention Facility no. 8
07/02/2022
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
3 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water
7,500
14269/25
29/04/2025
Maksym Dmytrovych BONDARENKO
1996
Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych
Kryvyy Rig
Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility
03/01/2024 to
29/07/2025
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s)
2.5 – 4 m²
mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, overcrowding (except for 19/06/2024-20/06/2024, when he had over 4 sq. m)
4,100
14273/25
29/04/2025
Oleksandr Vitaliyovych KALUTSKYY
1979
Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych
Kryvyy Rig
Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility
19/06/2023
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s)
2.5 - 4.1 m²
mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, overcrowding (save for 20/12/2024 - 26/12/2024)
6,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.