FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF YEREMENKO AND KOCHETOV v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 68183/10 and 62963/13)              JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 14 June 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Yeremenko and Kochetov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Yonko Grozev, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2018,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 applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).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 LAWI.  JOINDER 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.II.  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, §§ 122‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).8.  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006), 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.III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  The applicant in application no. 68183/10 submitted another complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings which also raised issues 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, and noting that no evidence was presented in support of the Government’s objection that the proceedings were stayed because of the applicant’s bad health, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS13.  In application no. 62963/13, the applicant raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged inadequate medical assistance in the Simferopol pre-trial detention center (SIZO).14.  The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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.V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15.  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.”16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.17.  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,1.  Decides to join the applications; 2.  Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 62963/13 inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 5.  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 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Yonko GrozevActing 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 nameDate of birth FacilityStart 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]   68183/1015/11/2010Yuriy Petrovych Yeremenko15/08/1956Lviv pre-trial detention center (SIZO)10/12/2009 to18/06/20106 months and 9 days26 inmates1.2 m²lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh airArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: from 31/03/2005 to 07/08/2009 andfrom 10/12/2009 to 07/06/20126 years and 10 months3 levels of jurisdiction2,500   62963/1320/09/2013Vyacheslav Gennadyevich Kochetov14/10/1966Simferopol SIZO05/11/2010 to14/02/20143 years, 3 months and 10 days Cell no. 189. Overcrowding, not enough beds for all the inmates in cell, sleeping in turns, toilet is not separated from the living area, lack of space for storage of private things, washing and drying of the cloths in the cell, high humidity in the cell, mould on the walls, insects in the cell, lack of fresh air, unsanitary conditions in the cell. 7,200 [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.