Case of European Court of Human Rights, October 22, 2020 (case VYNOGRADSKYY v. UKRAINE)
|Resolution Date:||October 22, 2020|
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and... (see full summary)
CASE OF VYNOGRADSKYY v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 43961/19)
22 October 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vynogradskyy v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lado Chanturia, President,Ganna Yudkivska,Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 August 2019.
The applicant was represented by Mr M.O. Sosyedko.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”
The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s 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...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL