Background
Seven applicants complained about detention conditions in Ukrainian pre-trial detention facilities. Their allegations included overcrowding, poor ventilation, inadequate food and hygiene, restricted access to showers and outdoor exercise, insufficient light, lack of toilet privacy, mould, pests, and passive smoking.
The Government argued that some applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies because they had not sought civil compensation. The Court rejected that objection: a compensatory remedy was effective only after the poor conditions had ended, and the Government had not shown that the applicants had been transferred, released, or experienced improved conditions before applying to Strasbourg. The sister of Dmytro Pavlyuk, who died while his application was pending, was permitted to continue his case.
The Court’s Holding
The Court joined the applications, declared them admissible, and unanimously found violations of Articles 3 and 13. Applying its established detention-conditions case-law, it held that the applicants had been held in inadequate conditions and had no effective domestic remedy for those complaints.
It also found violations concerning additional complaints raised by three applicants: excessive pre-trial detention and lack of compensation for unlawful detention in Olag’s case; excessive criminal-proceedings length and no effective remedy for delay in the cases of Olag and Shtepo; and excessive pre-trial detention, excessive criminal-proceedings length, and no effective remedy for delay in Cherpachenko’s case. Ukraine was ordered to pay the applicants the awards listed in the appendix within three months.
Key Takeaways
- Overcrowding and the cumulative deficiencies in the applicants’ detention conditions breached Article 3.
- Ukraine lacked an effective domestic remedy for complaints about poor detention conditions, contrary to Article 13.
- A civil compensation claim cannot bar a Strasbourg application where the harmful detention conditions were still ongoing.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Court’s established Ukrainian detention-conditions jurisprudence to a group of prolonged pre-trial detention cases. It reinforces that States must both prevent degrading prison conditions and provide a practical remedy while those conditions continue.
It also confirms that related failures—prolonged pre-trial detention, excessive criminal-case duration, and absent remedies—may produce separate Convention violations alongside the detention-conditions claim.