FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SHYNKARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 22822/23 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG12 December 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shynkarenko 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 21 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 applicants were represented by Mr A.V. 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. Some 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 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).9.  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.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.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13.  Some 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. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.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.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 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 the 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 12 December 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 birthFacilityStart and end dateDurationSq. m per inmateSpecific grievancesOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary andnon-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]   22822/2316/05/2023Andriy Volodymyrovych SHYNKARENKO1978 Zhytomyr DetentionFacility no. 805/02/2018 to20/11/20235 year(s) and9 month(s) and 16 day(s)2.5-3 m²overcrowding, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm waterArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 03/02/2018 - 26/10/2023, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800   22875/2316/05/2023Sergiy Stepanovych TROKHANENKO1985 Zhytomyr DetentionFacility no. 811/11/2021pendingMore than2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s)2.5 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light 6,700   22922/2316/05/2023Mykola Volodymyrovych MARYNIN1992 Zhytomyr DetentionFacility no. 818/09/2018 to20/04/20234 year(s) and7 month(s) and 3 day(s)3 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, passive smoking, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to showerArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 08/09/2018 - pending,1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800   22948/2316/05/2023Andriy Volodymyrovych NAUMOV1979 Zhytomyr DetentionFacility no. 823/01/2019pendingMore than5 year(s) and9 month(s) and 13 day(s)3 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodentsArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 02/01/2019 - pending,2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800   22955/2316/05/2023Maksym Olegovych SKLADANOVSKYY1987 Zhytomyr DetentionFacility no. 802/11/2018pendingMore than6 year(s) and 3 day(s)2.6-3.2 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light 7,500   14377/2426/04/2024Oleg Sergiyovych SINELNYKOV1994 Zhytomyr Detention Facility28/05/2021pendingMore than3 year(s) and5 month(s) and 8 day(s)3 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm waterArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 26/05/2021 - pending,1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800   14381/2426/04/2024Oleg Yakovych STEPANYUK1975 Zhytomyr Detention Facility27/03/2018pendingMore than6 year(s) and7 month(s) and 9 day(s)2.5 m²overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to showerArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 21/03/2018 - pending,2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine,no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,800  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.