Background
Five applicants complained about conditions in Ukrainian detention facilities, principally in the Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4 and the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility. Their detention was ongoing when they applied to Strasbourg. The reported conditions included severe overcrowding, with 2.5 to 2.7 square metres of personal space per detainee, alongside shortcomings such as poor ventilation, inadequate hygiene, dirty or mouldy cells, restricted access to water or showers, insufficient light, inadequate exercise, poor food, and lack of privacy for toilets.
The Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies because they had not pursued civil compensation. The Court rejected that objection, noting that under its case-law a compensatory remedy is effective only after the deficient detention conditions have ended. In one application, brought by Akhad Todzhiboyev, the applicant also complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings pending since October 2019 and the absence of an effective domestic remedy for that delay.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Section unanimously joined the applications, declared them admissible, and held that Ukraine violated Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Applying its established detention-conditions case-law, the Court found the applicants’ conditions inadequate during the periods listed in the appendix. It found no basis in the Government’s materials to depart from its earlier findings concerning comparable structural problems in Ukraine.
The Court also held that the applicants lacked an effective domestic remedy for their detention-conditions complaints. As to Todzhiboyev’s additional claims, it found violations under its well-established case-law concerning the excessive length of his criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy for that delay. Ukraine was ordered to pay awards ranging from €5,300 to €9,800, plus any applicable tax, within three months.
Key Takeaways
- Detention in cells providing 2.5 to 2.7 square metres of personal space, combined with other deficiencies, breached Article 3.
- A civil compensation claim was not an effective remedy while the alleged inadequate detention conditions were continuing.
- The Court additionally found violations concerning the length of Todzhiboyev’s criminal proceedings and the lack of a remedy for that delay.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Court’s established approach to Ukraine’s continuing prison and pre-trial detention problems: serious overcrowding and related material deficiencies can amount to degrading treatment, and detainees must have a practical domestic remedy while the violation persists.
It also underscores that a post hoc compensation action does not satisfy Article 13 where an applicant remains in the allegedly unlawful conditions. The decision awarded individual just satisfaction without prescribing broader remedial measures.