FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF DERIGLAZOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 42363/18 and 5 others –see appended list)    JUDGMENT STRASBOURG30 September 2021    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Deriglazov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Jovan Ilievski, Mattias Guyomar, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2021,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 42363/18 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.THE LOCUS STANDI OF Ms Valeriya Oleksandrivna Golova (application no. 10720/20)6. As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 10720/20, the Court notes that the applicant died on 8 December 2020, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Ms Valeriya Oleksandrivna Golova, has requested to pursue the application in her husband’s stead. Having regard to its case-law (see, for example, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007, and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005), the Court sees no reason to refuse the request. However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and lack of an effective remedy in this connection. They 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 ...”8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ 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).9. 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.10. 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 applicants’ conditions of detention, as described in the table attached below, were inadequate.11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.12. In application no. 42363/18 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground.

Outcome for Article 3: violation