FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF LOBCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 36871/20 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG9 February 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lobchuk and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Mattias Guyomar, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023,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. 36871/20, 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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table below and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.7.  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).8.  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.9.  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 periods indicated in the appended table below 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.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  In application no. 36871/20, the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019).REMAINING COMPLAINTS13.  In application no. 36871/20 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention as to the inadequate conditions of his detention prior to 23 June 2014.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, they 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 CONVENTION14.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”15.  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, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 36871/20 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as described in the appended table, and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits Acting Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList 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 grievancesOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   36871/2020/07/2020Gennadiy Vasylyovych LOBCHUK1975 Turayeva Olga MykolayivnaDniproDnipro Penitentiary Facility no. 8923/06/2014to28/12/20217 years and 6 months and 6 days1-2 m²poor quality of food in view of his gallstone disease, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowdingArt. 3 - life sentence with no prospect of release - on 26/09/1997 the Dnipro Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to death penalty. On 25/11/1997 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that judgment. On 30/05/2000 the Dnipro Regional Court changed his punishment to life imprisonment.7,500   19849/2129/03/2021Oleksandr Oleksandrovych KANIVETS1988 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDniproDnipro Penitentiary Facility no.424/06/2019pendingMore than 3 years and5 months and 20 days2.5-4 m²lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, overcrowding 7,500   34014/2123/06/2021Oleksandr Leontiyovych MILLYER1978 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDniproCherkasy Pre-Trial Detention Facility17/10/2019to28/10/20212 years and 12 days1.91 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food 5,000   34016/2123/06/2021Yevgeniy Volodymyrovych SVYNTSOV1983 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDniproCherkasy Pre-Trial Detention Facility25/01/2019to30/08/20212 years and 7 months and 6 days<3.3 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food 6,100   36920/2105/07/2021Mark Anatoliyovych CHAUS1974 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDniproPoltava Penitentiary Facility08/08/2019to12/02/20211 year and 6 months and 5 days2.42 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to shower 4,100   46047/2102/08/2021Maksym Valeriyovych GLYEBOV1981 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDniproKyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility15/10/2018to17/03/20212 years and 5 months and 3 days2.9-7.9 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food 5,800   46055/2102/08/2021Vyacheslav Ivanovych PODVARCHAN1972 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDniproRomny Detention Facility no. 5617/11/2004to03/02/202116 years and 2 months and 18 days3.9 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food 7,500  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.