FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ORLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 8134/22 and 9 others –see appended list)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG16 January 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Orlov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,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.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. 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 CONVENTION5. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.6. 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, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).7. 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.8. The Court observes in the present case that, even deducting the in-cell sanitary facility from the overall surface area of the cell, the applicants disposed of more than 4 sq. m of personal space, including the space occupied by furniture (see the calculation methodology in Muršić, cited above, §114). However, other aspects of physical conditions of detention remain relevant for the Court’s assessment of the adequacy of an applicant’s conditions of detention under Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić, cited above, § 140, Canali v. France, no. 40119/09, § 51-53, 25 April 2013, Necula v. Romania, no. 33003/11, §§ 55-60, 18 February 2014, and, for example, Bușcu v. Romania [Committee], no. 73352/14, § 39, 20 April 2021). In this regard, the Court notes that the majority of the applicants’ grievances have not been adequately addressed by the Government. Primary evidence (including, where appropriate, photographs) related to the material conditions of detention complained of by the applicants, such as air quality, food and water quality, pest control, temperature and luminosity measurements, bathing facilities, privacy of toilet, laundry services, etc., have either not been provided or pertain to other cells or periods well before or after the applicants’ detention. Therefore, even if no issue arises with regard to the personal living space, the length of the applicants’ detention and the combined effect of the conditions they faced while being locked in their cells for up to twenty-three hours per day trigger the application of Article 3 of the Convention.9. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.11. In applications nos. 8134/22, 7054/23, 9717/23, 25848/23 and 25854/23 the applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.13. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Sukachov, cited above, §§ 165 and 167), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 13: violation