FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PIGORYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 5757/15 and 5 others – see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG13 January 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Pigoryev and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,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. They 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 and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on 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 ...”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 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.  The 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 Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, § 80, 10 February 2011), Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013), Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015), Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016) and Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021).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, Sukachov, cited above, §§ 165 and 167), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.15.  The Court further 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 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 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov 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 grievancesOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damageper applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   5757/1524/01/2015Dmytro Viktorovych PIGORYEV1979 Kryzhanovskyy Mykola ValentynovychKharkivKharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility 08/04/2014to19/11/2015 1 year and 7 months and 12 days2.7 m² Lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food.Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 08/04/2014 to 19/11/2015,1 year and 7 months and 12 days; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, collective detention orders.5,600250   55411/2030/11/2020Sergiy Mykolayovych RYABOKON1989 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDniproCherkasy Pre‑Trial Detention Facility 01/02/2019pending More than 2 years and 9 monthsand 18 days3.5 m²Lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light.Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 23/11/2018 – pending –more than 3 years: repetitive reasoning of the court decisions extending pre-trial detention; applicant’s personal circumstances were not considered, Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).8,300250   2312/2117/12/2020Vladyslav Vitaliyovych IVANCHENKO1998 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDniproCherkasy Pre‑Trial Detention Facility 13/10/2017pending More than 4 years and 1 monthand 6 days1.85 –5.36m²Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, 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.Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 12/10/2017 – pending,more than 4 years, based on standard grounds without analysis of risks or alternative measures, Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015), Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 12/10/2017 – pending,more than 4 years, 1 level of jurisdiction, Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings. 9,800250   8410/2127/01/2021Volodymyr Oleksandrovych CHERNENKO1976 Kulbach Sergiy OleksandrovychLimogesDnipro Pre‑Trial Detention Facility 02/04/2018pending More than 3 years and 7 monthsand 17 days2.7 m²Overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air.Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 28/03/2018 - pending,more than 3 years and8 months,1 level of jurisdiction, Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 28/03/2018 – pending,more than 3 years and8 months; fragility of the reasons employed by the domestic courts; lack of due diligence in conducting the proceedings.9,800250   8411/2127/01/2021Oleksiy Valeriyovych LUTSENKO1978 Kulbach Sergiy OleksandrovychLimogesDnipro Pre-Trial Detention Facility 02/04/2018pending More than 3 years and 7 monthsand 17 days2.7 –3.6 m²Lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower.Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 28/03/2018 - pending,more than 3 years and8 months,1 level of jurisdiction, Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 28/03/2018 – pending,3 years and 8 months, fragility of the reasons employed by the domestic courts; lack of due diligence in conducting the proceedings.9,800250   15694/2116/03/2021Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych REBRYSTYY1970 Kulbach Sergiy OleksandrovychLimogesDnipro Penitentiary Facility no. 4 19/11/2012pending More than 9 years2.6 –3.7 m²Lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food.Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention –from 13/11/2012 to 06/06/2014,from 11/12/2014 to 19/04/2016,from 27/07/2016 to 26/04/2018,from 17/12/2018 to 08/07/2021,7 years, 2 months and 25 days, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - from 13/11/2012 – 08/07/2021, 9 years and 6 days before 2 levels of jurisdictions, Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.9,800250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.