Quick answer
In Kharchenko v. Ukraine (Application no. 40107/02, judgment of 10 February 2011), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that Ukraine had violated Article 3 (conditions of detention in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre) and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). Because the problems were recurrent, the Court also indicated, under Article 46, that Ukraine had to take general measures to reform its system of pre-trial detention.
Background and facts
The applicant was held in the Kyiv SIZO (pre-trial detention centre) for a lengthy period pending investigation and trial. He complained about the physical conditions of his detention and about a series of defects in the legal basis, length and review of that detention. Various periods of his detention were not covered by any court order, or were extended without a proper decision fixing their duration.
The Court’s reasoning
Article 3 — conditions of detention
The Court found that the physical conditions in which the applicant was held in the Kyiv SIZO reached the threshold of degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.
Article 5 § 1 — lawfulness
Parts of the detention had no valid legal basis: the applicant was held during periods not covered by any judicial decision, and detention was continued without a court order fixing its length. Such detention was arbitrary and unlawful.
Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 — length and review
The Court found that the applicant had not been brought promptly before a judge and that his continued pre-trial detention was not justified over its overall length, in breach of Article 5 § 3. It also found that he did not have access to a speedy and effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, in breach of Article 5 § 4.
Article 46 — a systemic problem
Crucially, the Court noted that the violations were not isolated. They stemmed from a recurrent structural problem in the Ukrainian system of pre-trial detention. Under Article 46 it indicated that Ukraine should adopt urgent general measures — including legislative reform — to bring its law and practice into line with the Convention.
The judgment
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3, and violations of Article 5 § 1, Article 5 § 3 and Article 5 § 4. It awarded the applicant EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and indicated general measures under Article 46.
Why this case matters
Kharchenko functions as a quasi-pilot judgment on pre-trial detention in Ukraine. It catalogues the typical Article 5 defects — detention without a court order, extensions without a fixed term, absence of prompt judicial review — and treats them as a systemic failure requiring reform, not merely an individual wrong. It is regularly cited in later Ukrainian detention cases.
What this means for applicants
- Every period of detention needs a valid legal basis. Gaps not covered by a court order, or extensions with no fixed end date, breach Article 5 § 1.
- Detention must be reviewed speedily. The lack of a prompt, effective procedure to test lawfulness breaches Article 5 § 4.
- Length must be justified throughout. Prolonged pre-trial detention on stereotyped grounds breaches Article 5 § 3.
- Conditions matter independently. Overcrowded or degrading SIZO conditions can breach Article 3 in their own right.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Kharchenko v. Ukraine decide?
The Court found that Ukraine breached Article 3 (detention conditions) and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, and that the problems reflected a systemic failure in the pre-trial detention system requiring general reform under Article 46.
Why was the detention unlawful under Article 5 § 1?
Because parts of it were not covered by any court order and detention was extended without a decision fixing its duration, making it arbitrary.
What is the significance of the Article 46 indication?
It signalled that the violations were structural and that Ukraine had to change its legislation and practice, not just compensate the individual applicant.
How much was awarded?
EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Is this judgment still relevant?
Yes. It is a leading reference for Article 5 complaints about pre-trial detention in Ukraine and for identifying the recurrent defects the Court expects to be remedied.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom
- Paposhvili v. Belgium
- Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
- Trabelsi v. Belgium
- Saadi v. Italy
- Chahal v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.