LADA v. UKRAINE - 32392/07 (Judgment : Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture) [2018] ECHR 126 (06 February 2018)

LADA v. UKRAINE - 32392/07 (Judgment : Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture) [2018] ECHR 126 (06 February 2018)

There was a violation of Article 3 due to poor detention conditions, as the applicant's account of inadequate facilities and lack of basic amenities was accepted in the absence of rebuttal by the Government. Complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 2 were inadmissible due to being out of time and manifestly ill-founded, respectively. The judge's language did not amount to a breach of the presumption of innocence when read in context.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 126
Parties
Applicant: Leonid Andreyevich Lada; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by European Court of Human Rights (fourth Section Committee)
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Conditions of Detention, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Liberty, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Just Satisfaction
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Conditions of Detention Presumption of Innocence Right to Liberty Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Just Satisfaction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonid Andreyevich Lada

Applicant

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by European Court of Human Rights (fourth Section Committee)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conditions of detention violated Article 3 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's deprivation of liberty was unlawful under Article 5 § 1
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 was breached

Ratio Decidendi

There was a violation of Article 3 due to poor detention conditions, as the applicant's account of inadequate facilities and lack of basic amenities was accepted in the absence of rebuttal by the Government. Complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 2 were inadmissible due to being out of time and manifestly ill-founded, respectively. The judge's language did not amount to a breach of the presumption of innocence when read in context.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Complaint regarding poor conditions of detention declared admissible; remainder inadmissible.
  • Violation of Article 3 of the Convention found.