FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF TUNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 9590/22 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG28 May 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Tunik 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 May 2025,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. Some applicants 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 of the lack of an 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.  The Court also refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of detention cases (Muršić, cited above, §§ 127-28). In particular, in reply to a prima facie case of ill-treatment, complained of by the applicants, the Government is expected to provide 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). Other documents and photographs, related to air, food, water quality control, pest control, temperature and luminosity measurements, bathing facilities, privacy of toilet, laundry services etc., should pertain to cells and periods of the applicants’ detention.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 28 May 2025, 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 grievancesOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   9590/2210/02/2022(3 applicants) AND 2874/2412/01/2024(3 applicants)Vyacheslav Olegovych TUNIK1977 Anton Yuriyovych PAVLENKO1988 Yuriy Mykolayovych SAMOYLENKO1989 Kulbach Sergiy OleksandrovychLimogesDniproPre-Trial Detention Facility no. 421/02/2020pendingMore than5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s)1.7-2.8 m²overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh airArt. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - excessive length of pre-trial detention, from 19/02/2020 - pending (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15,§§ 38-42, 15 December 2016), Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings –18/02/2020 - pending1 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).9,800250   7419/2427/12/2023Anton Viktorovych GOLOVIN1996 Rozumovskyy Oleksandr SergiyovychKharkivKharkivPre-Trial Detention Facility20/08/2020 to30/08/20233 year(s) and 11 day(s)2.6-4.25 m²overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of foodArt. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 14/08/2020 - 20/03/2024, failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention (see Kharchenkov. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§ 38-42,15 December 2016), Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings –04/12/2019 - 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). 8,900250   7465/2411/03/2024Oleksandr Volodymyrovych KLYUCHKA1985 Rozumovskyy Oleksandr SergiyovychKharkivKharkivPre-Trial Detention Facility20/08/2020 to31/01/20243 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 12 day(s)2.7-3.1 m²overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh airArt. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 14/08/2020 – 20/03/2024, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15,§§ 38-42, 15 December 2016), Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings –27/12/2019 – 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)9,800250   7958/2404/03/2024Vladyslav Anatoliyovych MOGYLAT1997 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDniproPoltava Detention Facilityno. 2303/08/2022pendingMore than2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)2.7 m²overcrowding, passive smoking, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower 6,200-   7961/2404/03/2024Oleksandr Mykolayovych MIZIK1976 Pustyntsev Andriy VitaliyovychDniproPoltava Detention Facilityno. 2313/06/2022pendingMore than2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 13 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, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower 6,500-   14276/2418/04/2024Sergiy Sergiyovych KONDRASHYN1982 Rybiy Sergiy MykolayovychDniproNovhorod-Siverskyy Detention Facilityno. 3115/08/2012 to18/04/202411 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)3.3 m²mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of toiletries, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to potable water 7,500- [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.