CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s849CFBF5 { width:199.29pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s50040358 { width:255.75pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sFB246575 { height:30.05pt }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF LOPATA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 84210/17 and 23 others - see appended list )           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 December 2020         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Lopata and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ivana Jelić, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     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 FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained under Article 3 about their life sentence with no prospect of release. Some applicants also raised other complaints under other the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     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 ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained principally of their life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible   de jure   and   de facto , meaning that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§   59-81 , ECHR 2013 (extracts) ). 8.     In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12   March 2019), 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 10.     Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 11.     The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, §   201), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release admissible,   and the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Ivana Jelić Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (life sentence with no prospect of release) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the trial court Date of the life sentence Judicial decision upholding the conviction     84210/17 09/12/2017 Stepan Anatolyevich LOPATA 1984 Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna Kharkiv Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal 12/12/2006 -     9511/18 03/05/2018 Volodymyr Mykolayovych BALA 1976 Boykova Iryna Anatoliyivna Kyiv Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal 08/08/2003 Supreme Court of Ukraine 18/11/2003     21183/18 25/04/2018 Oleksiy Ivanovych ROMANENKO 1976 Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna Kharkiv Kherson Regional Court 19/09/1997 -     26008/18 21/04/2018 Nikolay Yevdokimovich SILI 1958 Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych Kyiv Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal 28/03/2007 -     38904/18 07/07/2018 Sergey Petrovich KHUKALENKO 1971     Sumy Court of Appeal 23/06/2005 -     41765/18 06/08/2018 Volodymyr Ivanovych PANASENKO 1959     Lviv Regional Court of Appeal 19/09/2008 -     43373/18 01/09/2018 Pakhrudin Mukhtarovich ALIEV 1968 Saypudinova Saykha Omarpashayevna Saratov Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea 10/02/1997 Supreme Court of Ukraine 15/05/1997     58225/18 05/12/2018 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ROMANENKO 1972 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Kirovsk Regional Court of Dnipropetrovsk 23/02/2017 Supreme Court of Ukraine 05/06/2018     58644/18 10/12/2018 Valeriy Petrovich VODOTOVKA 1960 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Kyiv City Court 01/07/1997 Supreme Court of Ukraine 16/07/1998   59102/18 10/12/2018 Dmitriy Lvovich SILIN 1975 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Kyiv City Court 08/08/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine 26/04/2001   59271/18 10/12/2018 Sergey Stepanovich MARTSYNKEVICH 1967 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Ternopil Regional Court 21/09/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine 12/12/2000   26708/19 24/10/2019 Aleksandr Viktorovich IVANOV 1956 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Odesa Regional Court 19/02/1997 -   35936/19 27/06/2019 Volodymyr Volodymyrovych KOSTIN 1979 Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna Kharkiv Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal 17/05/2002 -   42966/19 17/07/2019 Demyan Ivanovych STARENKYY 1968     Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea 26/01/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine 21/07/2005   44910/19 13/08/2019 Oleksandr Stepanovych MELNYCHENKO 1972 Gaydamachenko Tamara Petrivna Kyiv Lviv Regional Court 19/02/2001 Supreme Court of Ukraine 30/10/2001   47458/19 06/09/2019 Aleksandr Ivanovich ZHUCHENKO 1959 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Donetsk Regional Court 04/09/1998 Supreme Court of Ukraine 21/10/1999   47468/19 06/09/2019 Aleksandr Levkovich VASALATYY 1962 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg   Zaporizhzhya Regional Court 22/01/1999 -   48975/19 16/09/2019 Pavel Andreyevich GARKAVENKO 1979 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Donetsk Regional Court 20/06/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine 11/01/2001   48985/19 13/09/2019 Valeriy Nikolayevich TISHCHENKO 1968 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Kharkiv Regional Court 26/05/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine 06/11/2001   59160/19 03/11/2019 Aleksandr Aleksandrovych PASHCHENKO 1975     Rubezhanskiy Town Court of Luhansk Region 29/05/2012 Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal 16/11/2012; High Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Cases 23/09/2014   59413/19 30/10/2019 Mykola Oleksandrovych KHOKHLICH 1976     Khmelnytsk Regional Court 09/02/1996 Supreme Court of Ukraine 21/06/2000   60591/19 19/11/2019 Yevgeniy Viktorovich KHLOPONIN 1975 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Donetsk Regional Court 30/12/1998 -   61374/19 12/11/2019 Yelchin Burkhan Ogly AGABALAYEV 1974     Kherson Regional Court of Appeal 10/06/2008 Supreme Court of Ukraine 02/12/2008   63910/19 18/11/2019 Valeriy Viktorovich VASILENKO 1980 Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna Kharkiv Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal 24/11/2003 Supreme Court of Ukraine 22/06/2004