FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PETRUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 1343/19 and 5 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENTSTRASBOURG14 November 2019 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Petruk and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Yonko Grozev, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 24 October 2019,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.  All applicants, except the applicant in application no. 1343/19, were represented by Mr S.M. Rybiy, a lawyer practising in Dnipro.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.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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints fall to be examined under 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 case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine, no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019), 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 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.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13.  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.”14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Melnik v. Ukraine, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.15.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;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 14 November 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt André PotockiActing Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameDate of birth FacilityStart and end dateDurationSq. m per inmateSpecific grievancesAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]   1343/1912/12/2018Denys Vasylyovych Petruk15/06/1988Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 30/07/2012 to09/08/2018 6 years and 11 days2.5 m²inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, bunk beds, overcrowding12,200   3773/1927/12/2018Ruslan Illich Onishchenko12/03/1972Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 21/06/2015 to09/08/2018 3 years, 1 month and 20 days2.7-2.9 m²lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water6,900   3783/1927/12/2018Danyl Oleksandrovych Lyashuk01/11/1995Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 11/09/2015 to09/08/2018 2 years, 10 months and 30 days3 m²infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water6,500   3786/1927/12/2018Illya Ivanovych Kholod14/10/1989Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 11/03/2016 to18/09/2018 2 years, 6 months and 8 days2.4-3 m²infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to potable water5,900   4093/1922/12/2018Mykyta Volodymyrovych Kust07/01/1995Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 21/06/2015Pending More than 4 years, 3 months and14 days2,6-3 m²1 toiletinfestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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 running water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water9,000   4095/1922/12/2018Anatoliy Mykolayovych Plyamadyala20/10/1982Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 14/04/2016Pending More than 3 years, 5 months and21 days2.8-3.1 m²1 toiletinfestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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 running water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water7,500  [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.