SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES

Contact: John Darcy

Tel: 03 88 41 31 56

Date: 24/05/2019
DH-DD(2019)597

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1348th meeting (June 2019) (DH)

Item reference: Action report (11/04/2019)

Communication from Ukraine concerning the case of TROSIN v. Ukraine (Application No. 39758/05)

***********

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de
ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1348e réunion (juin 2019) (DH)

Référence du point : Bilan d’action

Communication de l’Ukraine concernant l’affaire TROSIN c. Ukraine (Requête n° 39758/05)

(anglais uniquement)
 DH-DD(2019)597: Communication from Ukraine.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
DGIRepresentative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
11 AVR. 2019
SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION
DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report
on measures to comply with the ECHR judgment in case of Trosin v. Ukraine
(application no. 39758/05, judgment of 23/02/2012, final on 23/05/2012)

Case Summary
Following the applicant’s conviction in April 2005 to life imprisonment until February
2010, he was allowed to see his relatives no more than once every six months. Subsequently,
following an amendment of the Enforcement of Sentences Code, he was granted family visits once
every three months. The visits lasted no longer than four hours and no more than three adult visitors
could be present at once. As the applicant maintained relations with his wife, mother, adult brother
and his son, one of his four relatives had to be excluded from each visit from the moment his son
attained full age in 2010. The applicant was allowed to communicate with his visitors exclusively
via glass partition and a prison officer listened to his conversations with them.
The Court noted, in particular, that the relevant provisions of domestic law introduced
automatic restrictions for all life prisoners and did not offer any degree of flexibility for
determining whether such severe limitations were appropriate or indeed necessary in each
individual case even though they were applied to prisoners sentenced to the highest penalty under
the criminal law.
The Court therefore considered that the State did not take the necessary measures to ensure
that the applicant’s private interest in meeting with his family was properly balanced against the
relevant public interest in preventing disorder or crime. The Court further held that the restrictions
complained of were not justified as regards the frequency and length of the family visits, the
number of persons admitted per visit, and the manner of conducting these visits. For the above
reasons the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
One of the letters sent by the applicant to the Court, in February 2006, was stamped on its
first page by the detention facility. Up to October 2006, his letters to the Court were accompanied
by covering letters from the facility briefly stating the nature of his submissions. Therefore, the
Court found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention as regards the monitoring of the applicant’s
correspondence with the Court by the domestic authorities.
Individual measures
The applicant died on 6 July 2011. Following his death, the just satisfaction was equally
shared among his three heirs (mother, wife and son) under conditions accepted by them.
General measures
The violations found in the present case concern the deficiencies in the relevant national
legislation and in administrative practice.
DH-DD(2019)597: Communication from Ukraine.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

As regards the violation of Article 8 of the Convention

This violation was found in the present case due to the deficiencies of the national
legislation in force regulating the procedure of family visits. The violations occurred when the
Internal Rules for Establishments Enforcing Sentences, approved by the Order of the State
Department for the Enforcement of Sentences of 25 December 2003 (“the Prison Rules”), were still
in force.
Since then, significant legislative amendments have taken place in this field. During
September 2016, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine passed several laws initiated by the Ministry of
Justice amending the legislation regulating the activities of the Penitentiary Service of Ukraine:
1. The Law of Ukraine on Amending Certain Statutory Acts of Ukraine regarding
Improvement of Access to Justice by Detained and Imprisoned Persons No. 1491-VIII (in force
since 7 September 2016);
2. The Law of Ukraine on Amending Certain Statutory Acts of Ukraine regarding Ensuring
Execution of Sentences and the Exercise of Convicted Person’s Rights No. 1492-VIII (in force
since 7 September 2016);
3. The Law of Ukraine on Amending the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine regarding
Humanisation of Procedure and Conditions of Execution of Sentences No. 1488-VIII (in force since
7 September 2016);
4. The Law of Ukraine on Amending the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine regarding
Improvement of Imposing Incentives and Penalties on Convicted Persons No. 1487-VIII (in force
since 7 April 2017).
The aforementioned Laws humanise the sentencing process and provides the mechanisms
for adequate exercise of convicted persons’ rights.
Of particular interest to the violation found in the present case, Article 151 of the
Penitentiary Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the “PCU”), has been amended so that
persons convicted to life imprisonment may receive visits every two months.
According to the amendments to the PCU, made in 2014, life prisoners are provided with
one short visit per month and one long visit once in three months with close relatives (spouses,
parents, children, adoptive parents, adoptive parents, brothers and sisters, grandfather, grandmother,
grandchildren). Long-term dates may be granted to a spouse who lived in the same family but was
not married, provided that they have joint juvenile children. (Article 110.4 of the PCU).
At the present time the draft Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine “On Approval of
Amendments to the Internal Prison Rules” had passed the stage of public observations and is about
to be adopted. Below is provided the comparative table of the provisions of the Prison Rules which
is now enforced from 28 August 2018 and the provisions of the draft Order.
DH-DD(2019)597: Communication from Ukraine.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Previous wording As worded after amending of the

Internal Prison Rules

Chapter XIV
ID card is the identification document of the The identification documents of the visitors
visitor, for minors - a birth certificate. The are the documents specified in part one of
documents confirming the spouses' marital ties Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On the
are the marriage certificate, and for the not Uniform State Demographic Registry and
married spouses living in the same family, the documents confirming the citizenship of
birth certificate of the common minor children. Ukraine, identifying the person or his special
status” and in paragraph 16 of part 1 of
Article 1 of the Law Ukraine “On the Legal
Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons”,
for minors such documnent is a birth
certificate.
A visit permission is given by the head of the A visit permission is given by the head of the
penitentiary institution, his first deputy or the penitentiary institution, his first deputy or the
persons who perform their duties, on the persons who perform their duties, on the
application of the convicted person or the application of the convicted person or the
visitor. visitor.
Prior to the obtaining such a permit, the
application for the appointment must be
registered by the junior inspector of the shift
of duty.
In case of refusal for visit, a note with the In case of refusal for visit, a note with the
reasons for such refusal must be made on the reasons for such refusal must be made on the
statement of the convicted person or a visitor. statement of the convicted person or a visitor.
At the request of the convicted person or the
person who apply for the visit, it must be
provided a copy of the statement with a note
on the reasons for the refusal.
Sentenced to life imprisonment held in the Sentenced to life imprisonment held in the
cell-type room, visits are provided in the rooms cell-type room, visits are provided in the rooms
for short-term visits, which are usually located for short-term visits, which are usually located
on the territory of the sector of maximum in the building of the cell-type rooms the
security. prison colony (sector) of the maximum level
of security.

Moreover, according to the amendments to the PCU, made in 2016, if the prisoners perform
all the assigned duties and adhere to the rules of conduct, established by this Code as well as to the
Internal Prison Rules, obey to the rules of labor regulations and perform labor safety requirements
for persons serving sentences in form of imprisonment, they may be provided with an additional
short or long visit (p. 1 Art. 130 of the PCU).
According to the amendments to the PCU, made in 2016, short-term visits duration can be
up to four hours and long-term - up to three days. Short-term visits are provided with relatives or
other persons in the presence of a representative of the colony.
DH-DD(2019)597: Communication from Ukraine.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

At the request of a prisoner or a lawyer or other specialist in the field of law that is legally
entitled to provide legal assistance personally or on behalf of a legal entity, visits with lawyers may
be provided without the presence of a representative of the colony.

As regards violation of Article 34 of the Convention

The Court found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention due to the monitoring of the
applicant’s correspondence with the Court by the domestic authorities in February 2006 and up to
October 2006. The Government considers that the violation found in the present case was of
systemic nature before 1 December 2005 – before the legislation as regards the monitoring of the
prisoners’ correspondence was amended.
Article 113 of the Enforcement of Sentences Code, following amendments made to it on 1
December 2005, stipulates that prisoners’ correspondence is to be subject to automatic monitoring
by the prison staff except for proposals, applications and complaints addressed to the National
Ombudsman, the European Court of Human Rights, other relevant international organisations of
which Ukraine is a member or participant, authorised persons of those international organisations,
or prosecution authorities. The actions taken by the detention facility were therefore not in
accordance with domestic law itself and broad publication and dissemination of the judgment
(as set out below) should avoid similar violations in the future.
Explanatory notes as to the conclusions of the Court in the abovementioned judgment were
sent to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, Odesa SIZO no. 21 and Sokalska Correctional
Colony no. 47 requesting to avoid similar violations and bring their practices in accordance with the
requirements of the Convention and national legislation.
The general measures in respect of this aspect are under supervision of the Committee of
Ministers in the Sergey Volosyuk group of cases.

Publication and dissemination

The judgment was translated into Ukrainian and published in the official Government’s
print outlet – Official Herald of Ukraine [Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy], no. 5, January 2013. Besides,
it was placed on the Ministry of Justice official web-site. The summary of the judgment was
published in the Government’s Courier [Uriadovyi Kurier], no. 113 of 26 June 2012 and placed on
the Ministry of Justice official web-site.
Explanatory notes as to the conclusions of the Court in the abovementioned judgment were
sent to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, Odesa SIZO no. 21 and Sokalska Correctional
Colony no. 47.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine and the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for civil and
criminal cases reported the Court’s conclusions in the above case to the judges of these courts.
Moreover, the Court’s conclusions in the above judgment were included into the submission
to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as to execution of ECHR judgments (as of June 2012). The
DH-DD(2019)597: Communication from Ukraine.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine instructed relevant authorities to take measures to remedy the
violation found, to avoid similar violations and bring their practices in accordance with the
requirements of the Convention.

Conclusions of the respondent Government

The Government consider that the individual and general measures adopted have fully
remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the
European Court of Human Rights in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar
violations and that Ukraine has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the
Convention.