Published on 13 October 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 43301/22
Bogdan Mykolayovych MALETS against Ukraine
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 24 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applicants have been held in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities, or under 24-hour house arrest. Invoking Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the lack of or restricted access to an air-raid shelter in detention facilities or at the place of their residence (in case of house arrest), which, in the circumstances of the ongoing war in Ukraine and in the view of possible shelling, puts their lives in danger. In applications nos. 43301/22 and 28242/24, the applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in relation to the above complaints. The applicant in application no. 26959/24 also complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he, a life prisoner, suffered discrimination as compared to other prisoners in that he was not escorted to a detention facility shelter during air-raids attacks.
The applicants also raise other complaints under different Articles of the Convention, which are listed in the appended table.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
IN RESPECT OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS
Has the applicants’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been put in danger as claimed by them? In particular, have the Government taken appropriate steps to safeguard the applicants’ lives?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 43301/22 AND 28242/24
Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by its Article 13?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION NO. 26959/24
Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with its Article 2?
In particular, has the applicant, a life prisoner, been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with other prisoners on account of the possibility to access an air-raid shelter available in a detention facility? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS
NOS. 25745/23, 563/24, 2867/24, 2887/24, 4372/24, 22858/24, 26959/24, 28242/24 AND 525/25
1. Did the material conditions of the applicants’ detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020)?
2. As regards application no. 22858/24, were the conditions of the applicant’s transportation between the detention facility and courts compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 107-9, 25 October 2007)?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS
NOS. 43301/22 AND 563/24
1. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 69-72, 1 July 2021)?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 76-79, 1 July 2021)?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 43301/22 AND 28242/24
1. Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons, for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, while extending the applicants’ detention? Did they consider alternative measures to the applicants’ continued detention (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 79-81, 10 February 2011, and Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, §§ 168-76, 4 July 2019)?
2. As regards application no. 43301/22, did the courts provide proper reasons while refusing bail for the applicant (see Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 116-30, 17 September 2020)?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION NO. 28242/24
Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, as required by its Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013, and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Detention Facility
Period of Detention
Other complaints raised
1.
43301/22
Malets v. Ukraine
02/09/2022
Bogdan Mykolayovych MALETS
1970
Kharkiv
Ukrainian
Roman Petrovych GAYDAY
Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 28/01/2020 – 08/02/2023
Article 5 § 3 – alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasons employed by the domestic courts as the case progressed from 28/01/2020 to 08/02/2023 (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016);
allegedly unlawful refusal of bail;
Article 6 § 1 – allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings – from 28/01/2020 – pending,
1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 69-72, 1 July 2021);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 76-79, 1 July 2021).
2.
46128/22
Moskalyov v. Ukraine
22/09/2022
Vladyslav Vasylyovych MOSKALYOV
1996
Odesa
Ukrainian
Denys Vasylyovych PONOMARENKO
Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Facility,
19/10/2020 – 24/11/2022
3.
46618/22
Aliyev v. Ukraine
30/09/2022
Pakhrudin Mukhtarovich ALIYEV
1968
Ukrainian
Saykha Omarpashayevna SAYPUDINOVA
Zhytomyr Detention Facility No. 8
4.
11323/23
Protas v. Ukraine
14/02/2023
Oleksandr Mykolayovych PROTAS
1969
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Ivan Ivanovych STAROSTA
Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility,
27/12/2022
pending
5.
25745/23
Pozyubanova v. Ukraine
27/05/2023
Kateryna Stepaniovna POZYUBANOVA
1980
Odesa
Ukrainian
Anna Sergiyivna ZHEGULINA
Mykolaiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility,
19/08/2022 – 27/01/2023
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: poor quality of food; lack or insufficient quantity of food; no or restricted access to warm water; infestation with insects/rodents; inadequate temperature; mouldy or dirty cell (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020)
6.
563/24
Rutkovskyy v. Ukraine
09/01/2024
Valeriy Valeriyovych RUTKOVSKYY
1988
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Anna Sergiyivna ZHEGULINA
Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility,
22/02/2019
pending
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; lack of fresh air; poor quality of food; infestation with insects/rodents; inadequate temperature; mouldy or dirty cell; applicant transported on numerous occasions (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020);
Article 6 § 1 – allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings – from 25/11/2017 –pending,
2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 69-72, 1 July 2021);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 76-79, 1 July 2021).
7.
1793/24
Dondik v. Ukraine
28/12/2023
Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych DONDIK
1986
Zaporizhzhia
Ukrainian
Teymur Kurbanovych MAMEDOV
24-hour house arrest, Zaporizhzhia,
07/11/2023
pending
8.
2867/24
Melnyk v. Ukraine
05/01/2024
Mykola Petrovych MELNYK
1964
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Mykhaylo Yuriyovych SAMULYAK
Chortkiv Detention Facility No. 26,
11/04/2023 – 07/09/2023
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperature; passive smoking; no or restricted access to shower; poor quality of potable water; poor quality of food; lack of bed linen; lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities; lack of toiletries; lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020).
9.
2887/24
Nikiforov v. Ukraine
05/01/2024
Roman Viktorovych NIKIFOROV
1980
Sumy
Ukrainian
10.
4372/24
Dzhyganskyy v. Ukraine
27/01/2024
Mykola Khrystoforovych
DZHYGANSKYY
1954
Kherson
Ukrainian
Andriy Valeriyovych SKRYNNYK
Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility,
09/12/2022 – pending
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: inadequate temperature; lack of toiletries; no or restricted access to running water; lack of privacy for toilet; lack of or insufficient natural and electric light (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020).
11.
22858/24
Pryadko v. Ukraine
07/08/2024
PRYADKO Yevgen Olegovych
1983
Dnipro
Ukrainian
Anna CARTIER
Dnipro Pre-Trial Detention Facility No. 4,
15/02/2024 – 04/09/2024
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; lack of bed linen; mouldy or dirty cell; no access to warm water; infestation of cell with insects/rodents; poor quality of food (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020) and transportation in a prison van (see Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 107-9, 25 October 2007);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020).
12.
26959/24
Datsyuk v. Ukraine
27/07/2024
Valeriy Petrovych
DATSYUK
1987
Cherneshchyna
Ukrainian
Temnivka Detention Facility No. 100, 28/03/2023 – 06/05/2024
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention in Temnivka Detention Facility no. 100: overcrowding; mouldy cell; lack of fresh air; lack of natural light; insufficient electric light; lack of privacy for toilet; no access to running water; restricted access to shower; insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; insufficient quantity and poor quality of food; poor quality of potable water; lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020).
13.
28242/24
Pushechkina v. Ukraine
09/09/2024
Tetyana Yuriyivna PUSHECHKINA
1993
Chornobayivka
Ukrainian
Anna Sergiyivna ZHEGULINA
Vinnytsia Detention Facility No. 1, 13/04/2023 – 09/05/2024
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; mouldy or dirty cell; infestation of cell with insects/rodents; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperature; lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; detention of women together with men (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020);
Article 5 § 3 – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasons employed by the domestic courts as the case progressed from 13/04/2023 to 09/05/2024 (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, and Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016);
Article 5 § 5 – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention – no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013, and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).
14.
525/25
Prykhodko v. Ukraine
18/12/2024
Vadym Yuriyovych PRYKHODKO
1996
Ukrainian
Dariya Anatoliyivna MAKHNENKO
Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility,
06/06/2024 – 16/12/2024
Article 3 – inadequate conditions of detention: overcrowding; mouldy or dirty cell; infestation of cell with insects/rodents; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperature; lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen; lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities; lack of toiletries; no or restricted access to potable water; no or restricted access to warm water; lack of privacy for toilet; lack of or insufficient natural and electric light; restricted access to shower; lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; insufficient quantity and poor quality of food (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 89-100, 30 January 2020);
Article 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, §§ 118-23, 30 January 2020).