FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SKRYNNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 2339/23 and 4 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG28 November 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Skrynnyk 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 7 November 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 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.  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. In particular, the Court observes that, in reply to a prima facie case of inadequate conditions of detention, complained of by the applicants, the Government have failed to provide any 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). 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.9.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS11.  In application no. 2339/23, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.12.  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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13.  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.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard admissible, and the remainder of application no. 2339/23 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationFacilityStart and end dateDurationSq. m per inmateSpecific grievancesAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   2339/2307/12/2022Viktor Petrovych SKRYNNYK1957   Romny Detention Facility no. 5624/03/2014pendingMore than10 year(s) and6 month(s) and 16 day(s)3.4 m²constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding7,500   22989/2310/05/2023Maksym Oleksandrovych IVANENKO1978   Romny Detention Facility28/08/2004 to10/05/202318 year(s) and8 month(s) and 13 day(s)3 m²overcrowding, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower7,500   23035/2316/05/2023Oleksandr Mykolayovych GUBARYEV1979   Romny Detention Facility no. 5628/08/2004pendingMore than20 year(s) and1 month(s) and 12 day(s)3 m²constant electric light, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower7,500   23543/2310/05/2023Yaroslav Mykolayovych ZAYIKA1983   Romny Detention Facility no. 5617/11/2004pendingMore than19 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)1-3 m²mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, arbitrary searches of the cells, frequent transfers between cells7,500   27417/2326/06/2023Igor Oleksandrovych KOVAL1962 Nazarenko Olena OleksandrivnaRomnyRomny Detention Facility no. 5604/07/2005pendingMore than19 year(s) and3 month(s) and 6 day(s)3 m²mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, numerous transfers to different cells7,500  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.