FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KYTSKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 7937/24 and 7 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG13 November 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kytsko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Diana Sârcu, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2025,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 applicants were represented by Mr A. Pustyntsev, a lawyer practising in Dnipro, Ukraine.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In applications nos. 7937/24 and 8629/24, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.8. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as they had not sought compensation before the civil courts for damage allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate conditions of detention. However, the Court has found that a compensatory remedy is effective only once the unsatisfactory conditions of detention have ended (see Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, § 113, 30 January 2020). In the present case, the Government did not indicate that the applicants had been released, or that the conditions of their detention had improved in case of their transfer, before they lodged their applications with the Court. The objection must therefore be rejected.9. The Court further 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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).10. In the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006) and Sukachov, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.11. The Court also refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of-detention cases (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 127-28). In particular, in reply to a prima facie case of ill-treatment, complained of by the applicants, the Government is expected to provide primary evidence showing cell floor plans and the actual number of inmates during the specific periods of the applicants’ detention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 123, and, for example, Sparysh and Kutsmand v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 49709/18 and 49870/18, 12 September 2024). Other documents and photographs, related to air, food, water quality control, pest control, temperature and luminosity measurements, bathing facilities, privacy of toilet, laundry services, etc., should pertain to cells and periods of the applicants’ detention.12. 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 during the period indicated in the appended table were inadequate.13. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.14. In applications nos. 7937/24 and 8629/24, the applicants 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