FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VORONKIN v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 19112/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Voronkin 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, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 April 2020.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A.V. Pustyntsev, a lawyer practising in Dnipro.
3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained mainly of the inadequate conditions of his detention and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He 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 applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of his 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 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 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 applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate.
10. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his 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-LAW
12. The applicant submitted another complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the duration of his pre-trial detention which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case‑law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011, and Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016.REMAINING COMPLAINT
13. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention relating to the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
14. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Melnik, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
17. The Court 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,Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 15 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
nature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtIvana Jelić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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]
19112/20
15/04/2020
Oleksandr Mykolayovych VORONKIN
1992
Dnipro pre-trial detention facility no. 4
25/11/2017
Pending
More than 3 years and 2 months and 23 days
2.5 m²
Lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen; lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; lack of fresh air; lack of toiletries; poor quality of food; no or restricted access to shower; no or restricted access to toilet; overcrowding
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 25/11/2017
to
01/04/2020,
roughly 2 years and 4 months
9,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy