Kryuk and Others v. Ukraine

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 23549/20 Pavlo Ivanovych KRYUK against Ukraine and 7 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 May 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Andreas Zünd , President , Vahe Grigoryan, Sébastien Biancheri , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above 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,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 4210/22 the applicant’s complaint of the excessive length of pre-trial detention was also communicated under Articles 5 § 3 of the Convention.

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The applicants lodged their applications with the Court, complaining of inadequate conditions of detention in the facilities concerned during the periods set out in the appended table. Notably, they indicated their continuing detention in those facilities.

In their observations, the Government provided records from the respective detention facilities indicating that the periods of the applicants’ detention differed from those specified in their application forms. In particular, all the applicants had left those facilities between six days and four months before lodging their applications with the Court (see the appended table for the relevant dates).

When invited to comment, the applicants’ representatives provided no explanation in this regard; however, some of them amended their statements of facts to reflect the dates of detention submitted by the Government. Only in application no. 4210/22 did the applicant’s representative address this issue, submitting that he had had no intention to mislead the Court, but he did not provide any further explanation of the discrepancy at issue.

The Court notes that in the recent case of Volozhanin and Znakovan v. Ukraine ((dec.), nos. 19951/21 and 31160/21, 3 March 2026) it found similar issues to those in the present case to amount to an abuse of the right of individual application. In particular, it rejected as abusive applications containing untrue facts regarding the duration of the applicants’ detention. The Court further observed that such facts played a key role in determining whether the conditions of detention satisfied the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention and had a significant impact on any award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, it drew strong unfavourable inferences from the applicants’ failure to provide any explanation, notwithstanding that they were represented by professional lawyers throughout the proceedings (ibid., §§ 29, 34-35).

In the present case, the applicants’ allegations of their continued detention had no basis in any supporting documents or evidence, apart from their bare statements. While the Court is mindful of the objective difficulties experienced by detained persons in gathering evidence to substantiate their claims, it notes that the applicants were represented by professional lawyers from the outset of the proceedings. There was no allegation of any undue restriction on communication between the applicants and their representatives. Nevertheless, the applicants signed the authority and application forms on the same day outside the detention facilities and subsequently lodged their applications claiming their continuing detention therein.

Accordingly, these complaints must be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

In application no. 4210/22, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

Although this applicant’s conduct which constituted abuse directly concerned only his complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that such behaviour should have implications for the admissibility of the entire application (see Safaryan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 16346/10, §§ 20-21 and 30, 14 January 2020, and Mamić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), nos. 21714/22 and 2 others, §§ 144-45, 9 July 2024).

It follows that the applications as a whole must be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Detention facility concerned

Date of signature (authority and application forms)

Date of introduction

Claimed detention period

(start and end dates)

Actual most recent detention period (start and end dates)

23549/20

Pavlo Ivanovych KRYUK

1990

Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych

Dnipro

Zaporizhzhya Pre-Trial Detention Facility

12/05/2020

12/05/2020

10/06/2017 – pending

16/11/2017 – 23/04/2020

4210/22

Rustam Narkuliyevych ACHILOV

1978

Kushnir Valeriy Volodymyrovych

Dnipro

Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility

09/12/2021

31/12/2021

06/12/2018 – pending

06/12/2018 – 22/11/2021

33965/22

Oleksiy Rudolfovych SHULYATYEV

1975

Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych

Dnipro

Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4

23/06/2022

26/06/2022

19/04/2021 – pending

19/04/2021 – 14/02/2022

22575/23

Oleksandr Oleksandrovych MELNYCHENKO

1988

Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych

Dnipro

Zhytomyr Detention Facility no. 8

15/05/2023

16/05/2023

10/08/2020 – pending

10/08/2020 – 26/04/2023

35061/23

Oleksandr Vitaliyovych GUDALOV

1983

Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych

Dnipro

Poltava Detention Facility no. 23

25/08/2023

31/08/2023

20/04/2022 – 25/08/2023

20/04/2022 – 25/04/2023

35711/23

Sergiy Mykolayovych MELNYK

1984

Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych

Limoges

Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility

28/06/2023

17/09/2023

03/08/2022 – pending

03/08/2022 – 27/06/2023

5044/24

Sergiy Mykolayovych SHAKHOV

1979

Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych

Dnipro

Romny Detention Facility no. 56

27/01/2024

27/01/2024

03/07/2019 – pending

03/07/2019 – 26/12/2023

12682/24

Sergiy Fedorovych DOMINOV

1967

Rybiy Sergiy Mykolayovych

Dnipro

Zamkova Detention Facility no. 58

10/04/2024

10/04/2024

13/01/2017 – 10/04/2024

14/04/2023 – 04/04/2024