FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF RODZEVILLO v. UKRAINE(Application no. 6128/12)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG17 December 2019 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Rodzevillo v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Síofra O’Leary, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 26 November 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 6128/12) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Oleg Leonidovich Rodzevillo (“the applicant”), on 9 November 2011.2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr A. Kristenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr I. Lishchyna.3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention, in particular, that the conditions of his detention in the Khmelnytskyy Pre-Trial Detention Centre and Ladyzhynska Prison no. 39 had been poor, and under Article 8 that the prison administration had “stolen” his correspondence. He also complained that he had had no effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints.4. On 24 August 2015 notice of the above complaints was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1967. He is serving a life sentence in Ladyzhynska Prison no. 39 (“Ladyzhynska Prison”).Conditions of detention in the Khmelnytskyy Pre-Trial Detention Centre6. Between 24 December 2011 and 14 January 2012 the applicant was temporarily detained in the Khmelnytskyy Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Khmelnytskyy SIZO”) while he was being transferred to a different prison for a medical examination.The applicant’s account7. According to the applicant, the lighting in his cell in the Khmelnytskyy SIZO was very poor, as the windows had iron shutters and the electric lamp was protected by a thick glass lampshade behind iron bars. The cell lacked basic items, such as a clothes rail, a broom, a scoop, a rubbish bin, a bucket and a mop or a rag for cleaning the floor. The shower compartment was very narrow (1 sq. m). There was a video surveillance camera over the toilet area.The Government’s account8. With regard to the period under examination, according to the Government, the applicant was detained in cell no. 13 in the maximum‑security sector, with 4 sq. m of living space. The cell complied with all sanitary requirements and was equipped with everything needed for cleaning (a broom, a scoop, a rubbish bin, a bucket and a mop or a rag for cleaning the floor). There was sufficient natural and artificial lighting. The applicant received three good-quality hot meals per day. Laundry and linen disinfection took place once per week and was free of charge. Prisoners serving life sentences took their showers individually, for security reasons. The video camera in the cell, which was indeed placed above the toilet area, did not have a view of the toilet itself.Conditions of detention in Ladyzhynska Prison9. The applicant has been serving his sentence in Ladyzhynska Prison since May 2007. The present application covers his detention there from April 2012 onwards.The applicant’s account10. Except when allowed to take a daily walk in the prison yard, the applicant was confined to a cell of approximately 6 sq. m. At times he was held alone, and at other times he shared the cell with one or two inmates.11. After the Government were given notice of the application, the applicant supplemented the above submissions by giving further details. According to him, at certain times during the relevant period he was detained in cells other than cell no. 15 (referred to by the Government, see paragraph 20 below), and he shared those cells with other inmates. Namely, he was detained:-             from 9 to 27 August 2012, and from 24 October to 11 December 2012 in cells nos. 19 and 22 respectively, which he shared with another inmate (2.67 sq. m per person);-             from 24 January to 1 February 2013 in cell no. 5; and from 28 April to 6 May 2014, and from 18 June to 17 July 2014 in cell no. 23 – both cells had two beds, but accommodated three inmates (3.1 sq. m per person).12. From 13 October to 6 November 2014 he shared cell no. 15 with another inmate, who was suffering from tuberculosis (2.67 sq. m per person).13. As a granite quarry was situated some two hundred metres from the prison, the air in the cell had an elevated level of radioactive granite dust, and a two-millimetre layer of dust covered all furniture and fittings on a daily basis, in spite of the applicant’s persistent efforts to clean it up.14. Tap water used for drinking and hygiene purposes was drawn directly from the local river. Barely treated, it was rusty and smelt bad. Prison employees did not use that water for their needs, and brought bottled water to work instead.15. The cell had no ventilation and was very damp. As a result of the damp, the paint on the walls had deteriorated and was peeling off. The lighting was poor and the heating was inadequate. There was no radio.16. The food was not nutritious. It mostly consisted of cereal and bread. The prisoners received scarcely any sugar, fresh vegetables, tea or cigarettes, items which were often appropriated by corrupt prison employees. The employees also stole bedding and other items received by the prison for prisoners’ needs.17. The prison shop was so poorly supplied that it was impossible to supplement one’s meagre prison meals with any purchases from there. It also lacked basic necessities such as toilet paper, writing paper, postal stamps and envelopes. In order to stay healthy and communicate with the outside world, the applicant depended heavily on parcels from his parents, which contained food, vitamins, stationery and medicines.18. Poor nutrition, coupled with poor ventilation and poor air quality, facilitated the proliferation of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Disinfection and UV sterilisation of the air in the cells, required by the applicable domestic law, was almost never carried out.19. Significant time and effort on the applicant’s part were required to arrange appointments with the prison governor and the competent prosecutorial authorities in order to bring his concerns to their attention. Although on several occasions he succeeded in obtaining such appointments, they brought no relief, as his complaints were not acted upon.The Government’s account20. The applicant was detained in cell no. 15, measuring 6.5 sq. m and designed to accommodate one prisoner. The cell was equipped with all the necessary furniture and household equipment. There was a metal bed, a table fixed to the floor, a bench, a bedside cabinet, a shelf for toiletries, a shelf for foodstuffs, a clothes rail, a container for drinking water with a jar and a bowl, a speaker for a public address system, a tap and a rubbish bin. The toilet was separated from the living area.21. There was daily wet cleaning with a disinfectant solution.22. The maximum-security sector had a combined supply-and-exhaust ventilation system. Natural ventilation was also available. The temperature in cell no. 15 during inspections by the prison administration was 22˚C.23. The food provided to inmates was in compliance with the relevant norms and standards. Inmates were provided with three meals per day. There was no shortage of foodstuffs at the prison.24. The applicant was provided with all necessary bedding, clothing and shoes. Prisoners were allowed to take a shower once a week and were provided with all their toiletries. Their bedding was changed once a week too.25. The prison shop was well stocked and offered a choice of fifty-five to ninety different items.26. The prison governor had regular appointments with prisoners. Between 2012 and 2015 he met with fifty-eight of them.27. The prison had isolation wards for detainees with contagious diseases. Not a single case of a contagious disease outbreak was registered in 2012.28. In providing all the information summarised above, the Government relied on a number of information notes issued by the administration of Ladyzhynska Prison, many of which did not indicate the date when they had been issued.Alleged “theft” of the applicant’s correspondence by the prison administrationThe applicant’s account29. According to the applicant, the following letters which he sent were stolen, given that he never received any reply to them – letters: of 10 January and 10 March 2011 addressed to the President of Ukraine; of 10 January 2011 addressed to the Prime Minister of Ukraine; of 11 January 2011 addressed to a member of parliament; of 17 January, 9 February, 8 September and 4 October 2011 and 21 February 2012 addressed to the Vinnytsia regional prosecutor’s office; of 17 January 2011 addressed to the Prosecutor General and the Government’s Agent before the Court in the Vinnytsia Region; of 20 January and 7 February 2011 addressed to the Prosecutor General; of 24 January 2011 addressed to the Control and Revision Department of Ukraine; of 26 January and 14 February 2011 addressed to the Security Service of Ukraine; of 17 February 2012 addressed to the Ladyzhyn prosecutor; and of 5 and 19 January 2011 and 20 February 2012 addressed to the Prison Service of Ukraine.30. Between November 2011 and January 2012 the applicant successfully sent twenty-six complaints concerning the conditions of his detention to various authorities.31. On many occasions at domestic level the applicant complained of the “theft” of his correspondence. He considered the authorities’ replies formalistic, and was of the opinion that no fully fledged investigation into the matter had been carried out.The Government’s account32. The Government contested the applicant’s allegation that some of his letters had been stolen. Relying on documentary evidence and citing the relevant numbers relating to outgoing correspondence, the Government stated that the following letters from the applicant had been sent out: on 12 January 2011 to the President of Ukraine and the Prime Minister; on 13 January 2011 to a member of parliament; on 17 January 2011 to the Vinnytsia regional prosecutor’s office; on 14 December 2011 to the Security Service; and on 19 January 2011 to the Prison Service of Ukraine.33. As regards the other letters which the applicant alleged had been stolen, the Government observed that, in the absence of any records indicating the contrary, it appeared that the applicant had not sought that they be dispatched.34. While in Ladyzhynska Prison, overall, the applicant sent 102 applications and 349 letters and received 240 letters. The Government based this information on relevant extracts from the incoming and outgoing correspondence logbooks.35. The applicant’s related complaints were duly investigated at domestic level and dismissed as unfounded. In particular, the Vinnytsia Regional Department of the State Prison Service carried out numerous internal investigations in that regard.RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW36. The 2003 Code on Enforcement of Sentences provides that male detainees sentenced to life imprisonment are to serve their sentences in prisons with the highest level of security (Article 18). They are detained in cells usually accommodating two inmates and are allowed to have a one‑hour daily walk (Article 151).THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION37. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Khmelnytskyy SIZO and Ladyzhynska Prison had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”AdmissibilityConditions of detention in the Khmelnytskyy SIZO38. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had failed to raise this complaint before the prosecution authorities.39. The applicant contested that argument and referred to the Court’s case-law, stating that there had been no effective domestic remedies in Ukraine in respect of such complaints (see, among other references cited by the applicant, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006).40. The Court does not consider it necessary to examine the exhaustion issue here, as this complaint should in any event be declared inadmissible for the following reasons.41. The Court reiterates that, when assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant. The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions has also to be considered (see Muršić v. Croatia, [GC], no. 7334/13, § 101, 20 October 2016, with further references).42.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation