FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TARANENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 1386/24 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Taranenko 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 19 February 2026,
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. Some 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 under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection.
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 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).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. Some 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 the cases set out in the appended table.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table 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(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 12 March 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]
1386/24
23/12/2023
AND
13429/24
08/04/2024
Roman Grygorovych TARANENKO
1983
Yolkin
Andriy Valeriyovych
Kryvyy Rig
Kyiv Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
30/04/2015
to
13/02/2024
8 years and 9 months and 15 days
2.5-3.6 m²
Overcrowding (save for unspecified short period when he had more than 3 sq. m of personal space), lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food.
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 22/04/2015 - 30/05/2024, 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
36481/24
27/11/2024
Yevgeniy Vasylyovych SHNYAKIN
1985
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro
Poltava Detention Facility no. 23
25/09/2023
pending
More than 2 years and 4 months and 12 days
2.5-2.9 m²
Overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking, poor quality of food.
5,600
36527/24
27/11/2024
Mykola Viktorovych TOLMACHEV
1977
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro
Poltava Detention Facility no. 23
20/07/2022
pending
More than 3 years and 6 months and 17 days
2.5-3.1 m²
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light.
7,500
4790/25
25/01/2025
Oleg
Viktorovych KAPELYUSHNYY
1971
Kulbach
Sergiy Oleksandrovych
Limoges
Kyiv Pre‑Trial Detention Facility
29/03/2024
pending
More than 1 year and 10 months and 8 days
2.5 m²
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, no or restricted access to shower.
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 14/11/2019 - pending, 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)
6,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.