CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42426/19 Andriy Valeriyovych YOLKIN against Ukraine lodged on 16 July 2019 communicated on 25 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application principally concerns the effectiveness of a domestic compensatory remedy with regard to the applicant’s complaints concerning inadequate conditions of detention. It also concerns allegedly lengthy compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant, who had been detained in the Kyiv detention facility on suspicion of kidnapping during two periods from 27/07/2012 to 09/08/2018 and from 06/12/2018 to 28/01/2019 in allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions, lodged civil claims before national courts and was awarded compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the first period of detention, which he finds insufficient. In January 2021 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings seeking non-pecuniary damages for criminal prosecution against him for an attempt to escape from detention, that had been discontinued. According to the applicant, the compensation proceedings are still pending before the first instance court. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the inadequate conditions of his detention, and under Article 6 § 1 of the unreasonable length of the compensation proceedings. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of any effective domestic remedy for the above complaints.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention from 27 July 2012 to 9 August 2018 and from 6 December 2018 to 28 January 2019 amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20   October 2016; Melnik v. Ukraine , no. 72286/01, 28   March 2006; Sukachov v. Ukraine , no.   14057/17, 30   January 2020)?   2.     Was the remedy used by the applicant in relation to his detention from 27 July 2012 to 9 August 2018 effective, in particular in the light of the Court’s case-law establishing the criteria for an adequate compensatory remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see   Sukachov   v.   Ukraine , no. 14057/17, §   159, 30   January 2020)? If so, did the applicant exhaust an effective domestic remedy regarding his complaint under Article   3 in relation to his detention from 6 December 2018 to 28   January 2019?   The Government are requested to provide relevant examples of domestic case-law and statistics as regards the use of this compensatory civil remedy, which could allow the Court to evaluate its availability and effectiveness in relation to the complaints about poor conditions of detention.   3.     Was the length of the compensation proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( see   Karnaushenko v. Ukraine , no. 23853/02, §§ 47-62, 30 November 2006)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?