FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BOYCHUK v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 15484/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Boychuk v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 15484/19) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 March 2019 by a Ukrainian national, Ms Nataliya Vitaliyivna Boychuk (“the applicant”), who was born in 1972, lives in Kharkiv and who was represented by Mr O. Nevolnichenko, a lawyer practising in Krasnograd;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice.
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns an allegedly ineffective investigation into the complaints of ill-treatment sustained by the applicant at the hands of her then husband. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
Original investigation following the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment2. On 18 November and 28 December 2013; 19 May, 1 September, 8 September and 23 November 2014; and 1 June 2015 the applicant complained to the police that O.B., her husband at the time – then, after their divorce in July 2014, her former husband – had inflicted injuries on her. The forensic medical reports recorded those injuries, classifying them as minor (see Appendix ).
3. Following each incident, the police opened a criminal case (nos. 12013220490006012, 12013220490006769, 12014220490002149, 12043220490003979, 120141220490004118, 12014220490005560 and 12015220490002631). However, after questioning the applicant’s husband (who denied striking the applicant), her adult daughter B. and various other witnesses, they closed the proceedings for lack of evidence (see Appendix).
4. The Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv annulled all those decisions as premature, indicating the necessary procedural steps to be taken (see Appendix I).
5. On 11 February 2016 six of the above-mentioned seven criminal cases were merged into one case (no. 12013220490006012), however, the investigation was not expedited.
6. On 18 April 2017 a prosecutor from the Kharkiv prosecutor’s office initiated a procedure to remove the investigator from the investigation of criminal case no. 12013220490006012.
7. On 21 February, 20 and 24 April 2017 the police once again questioned D. (the applicant’s housekeeper), O.B. and B.
8. On 29 June 2017 the Kharkiv regional prosecutor’s office wrote to the applicant, admitting that the criminal investigation of case no. 2013220490006012 had not been effective and informed her that on 13 June 2017 the previous investigator had been removed from the investigation of the criminal case and another investigator had been appointed.
9. In 2017 and 2018 some additional forensic medical examinations of the applicant’s injuries were carried out.
10. On 22 and 31 May 2018 the Kharkiv regional prosecutor’s office and the Kharkiv local prosecutor’s office no. 2 wrote to the applicant, admitting that the criminal investigation of case no. 2013220490006012 had not been effective and informed her that they had written to the police, asking them to bring disciplinary action against the investigator.
11. On 23 June 2018 the police questioned B.
12. On 26 June 2018 the police carried out an investigative experiment with the applicant’s participation.
13. On 25 July 2018 the police once again questioned the applicant and B.
Civil claim14. On 1 October 2018 the Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv opened a civil case against the police and the prosecutor’s office. The applicant sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the lengthy criminal investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment.
15. On 3 July 2019 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated on the grounds that she had failed to prove the existence of non-pecuniary damage and had failed to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged damage and the actions (or lack of action) of the police and the prosecutor’s office. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
Further investigation in criminal case no. 1201322049000601216. In 2021 the investigation resumed. In particular, the police ordered 11 additional forensic medical examinations of the applicant’s injuries, all of which confirmed the veracity of the applicant’s version of events. However, they unsuccessfully attempted to find out the whereabouts of the applicant, O.B. and their daughter. The police questioned some of their neighbours, but they knew nothing about the applicant’s family or their disputes. According to the applicant, the police did not contact in this respect her legal representative who represented her at that time.
17. On 9 February 2023 the police closed the proceedings for lack of evidence, following their failure to establish the whereabouts of the applicant, her daughter, O.B. or other possible witnesses to the events.
18. On 17 March 2025, upon a complaint by the applicant’s representative, the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv annulled the decision of 9 February 2023 on account of the fact that the investigation had been incomplete; it had been carried out superficially and without paying attention to the instructions of a prosecutor from the prosecutor’s office. In particular, neither the applicant nor her daughter had been invited to participate in the investigative experiments; no face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and the applicant’s housekeeper D., had been carried out; and neither the neighbours nor the applicant’s acquaintance had been questioned. The court concluded that the investigator had failed to establish all the circumstances of the events and had reached a premature conclusion that the case had lacked evidence, especially given that the forensic medical examinations of the applicant’s injuries had confirmed the veracity of the applicant’s version of events.
19. On 15 October 2025 the police closed the proceedings owing to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution and for lack of evidence.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
20. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into her ill-treatment had been lengthy and ineffective. The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), will examine the above complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (see Buturugă v. Romania, no. 56867/15, §§ 43-44, 11 February 2020).
21. The Government stated that the alleged ill-treatment in the present case had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention and that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, namely that she had failed to lodge a civil claim seeking damages for the lengthy criminal investigation into her injuries.
22. The applicant objected and maintained her complaint.
23. The Court reiterates that it has already recognised that, depending on the circumstances of the case, domestic violence may be considered ill‑treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 (see Valiulienė v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 69, 26 March 2013). A fear of further violence might be sufficiently serious to cause suffering and anxiety amounting to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, §§ 53-55, 28 May 2013, and Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 74839/10, §§ 44-46, 16 July 2013).
24. In the present case, the Court finds that the alleged repeated beatings at the hands of the applicant’s husband between 2013 and 2015; the humiliation and suffering; and the feelings of fear and anguish she would have experienced when the events took place could be classified as “degrading” treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see J.S. v. Slovakia, no. 35767/23, §§ 44-47, 22 January 2026). The applicant thus raised an arguable complaint of ill-treatment, triggering the State’s positive obligations under that Article. Accordingly, the Government’s objections in relation to the minimum level of severity must be dismissed.
25. In relation to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court observes that the applicant had lodged a civil claim, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the lengthy investigation into her complaints of her ill-treatment, but her claim was dismissed (see paragraph 15 above). Nevertheless and without prejudice to this fact and any alleged remedy, the Court reiterates that the Contracting Parties’ obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible in cases of assault could be rendered illusory if, in respect of complaints under those Articles, an applicant were required to bring an action leading only to an award of damages (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 234, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). The Court finds that a domestic remedy only allowing payment of compensation for the lengthy criminal investigation into complaints of ill-treatment cannot afford adequate and ample redress to deprive the applicant of his or her victim status (compare R.B. v. Estonia, no. 22597/16, § 65, 22 June 2021). The Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed.
26. The Court further notes that the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
27. The general principles concerning the issue of domestic violence have been summarised most recently in J.S. v. Slovakia (no. 35767/23, §§ 36-41, 22 January 2026).
28. In the present case, O.B., the applicant’s former husband, had allegedly inflicted minor injuries on the applicant seven times. The police, after opening the criminal proceedings and obtaining forensic medical examinations to confirm the injuries, closed the proceedings for lack of evidence either on the grounds that O.B. had denied inflicting the injuries, that they had been minor or that the testimony of the applicant’s daughter had not been reliable (see Appendix).
29. The Court notes that the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv annulled the decisions of the police to close the criminal proceedings on the grounds that they were premature, and gave further instructions about the procedural actions to be taken in order to expedite the investigation and render it effective (see Appendix I). However, those instructions were not followed, given that in April 2017 a prosecutor posed a question about the removal of the investigator from the case (see paragraph 6 above). In 2017 and 2018 the Kharkiv regional and Kharkiv local prosecutor’s offices wrote to the applicant, admitting that the investigation had been ineffective (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). Following the resumption of the investigation in 2021, the results were still not sufficient enough to render it effective, according to the findings of the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv of 17 March 2025 (see paragraph 18 above). Lastly, the proceedings were closed in October 2025 owing to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution and for lack of evidence (see paragraph 19 above).
30. The Court observes that the investigation into the criminal cases, opened between 2013 and 2015, lasted more than 10 years and they were all closed for lack of evidence, despite the conclusions of the forensic medical reports confirming the veracity of the applicant’s version of events, the witness statements of the applicant’s adult daughter and the fact that O.B. had admitted that he and his former wife had had disputes.
31. In these circumstances, the Court has no other option but to conclude that the investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment had been ineffective.
32. There has accordingly been a violation of procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
33. The applicant claimed 14,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, consisting of EUR 2,000 multiplied by seven criminal cases into which the investigation had been ineffective. The applicant did not claim reimbursement in respect of pecuniary damage or in respect of her costs and expenses.
34. The Government objected to that amount as being excessive and unsubstantiated.
35. The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention;Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No.
Date and time of incident
Date of forensic report; description of injuries
Procedural history of the criminal case
Applicant’s version of event
Witness statements
1.
18/11/2013 at around 10 a.m.
19/11/2013
The following injuries were classified as minor:
an abrasion and a bruise on the face, right upper limb and an abrasion on the neck, right breast and left upper limb. They could not have been caused from a fall from the applicant’s height but, given their location, could be self-inflicted.
On 19/11/2013 the police opened criminal case no. 12013220490006012 under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“the CCU”) concerning the infliction of minor bodily injuries on the applicant. The police carried out an investigative experiment with the applicant’s participation.
On 09/12/2013 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence.
On 07/12/2015 the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyi Court”) annulled that decision as premature, as the police had relied on a statement from the medical forensic report that the injuries had been minor and could have been self-inflicted, but failed to question neighbours or simultaneously question the applicant and O.B., and failed to verify the reason for the difference in the statements given by D. on 22/11/2013 and 09/12/2013. The court instructed the police on the specific procedural actions to be taken.
On 19/11/2013 the applicant told the police that her husband had pushed her in the back and snatched her handbag from her hands. He had inspected it and thrown it away, following which he had pushed her onto a sofa and started strangling her. The applicant’s housekeeper, D., had entered the room and started calming O.B. down. Later, the applicant’s husband had held the applicant’s neck and had hit her head on a wall.
On 20/11/2013 the applicant’s adult daughter, B., was questioned. She stated that on 18/11/2013 when she had returned from university, she had seen bruises on her mother’s body. Her mother had explained that she had had a fight with her father, who had inflicted those injuries on her.
On 22/11/2013 D., the applicant’s housekeeper, partly confirmed the applicant’s version of events, but stated that she had not seen O.B. hitting the applicant, as she had been in another room.
On 06/12/2013 O.B. admitted that there had been a dispute, but denied hitting the applicant. He stated that the applicant had wounded his leg with scissors.
On 09/12/2013 D. provided a detailed account of the conflict, but stated that she had not seen O.B. striking the applicant.
2.
27/12/2013 at around 9.30 p.m.
30/12/2013
The following injuries were classified as minor:
multiple bruises on the applicant’s face, her upper and lower limbs.
On 28/12/2013 the police opened criminal case no. 12013220490006769 under Article 125 § 1 of the CCU concerning the infliction of minor injuries on the applicant.
On 11/01/2014 the police ordered a medical forensic investigation of the applicant’s injuries.
On 07/02/2014 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence on the grounds that the applicant had not been subjected to a forensic medical examination and that the documents from a private clinic could not be admitted to the file as a proof.
On 08/12/2015 the Kyivskyi Court annulled that decision as premature.
On 11/01/2014 the applicant told the police that following a verbal altercation, O.B. had beaten her.
On 18/01/2014 the police questioned O.B. He admitted that there had been a dispute, but denied hitting the applicant.
On 20/01/2014 the applicant’s daughter, B., refused to testify.
On 24/03/2016 B. was questioned. She gave a detailed account of the beating of her mother by her father on 27/12/2013.
3.
18/05/2014 at around 10.30 p.m.
20/05/2014
The following injuries were classified as minor:
an abrasion on the head, bruises on the arms and the left leg. Those injuries were not typical for self-infliction and could not have been caused by a fall from the applicant’s height.
On 20/05/2014 the police opened criminal case no. 12014220490002149 under Article 125 § 1 of the CCU concerning the infliction of minor bodily injuries on the applicant.
On 28/06/2014 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence.
On 28/08/2014 the Kyivskyi circuit prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv annulled that decision as premature and remitted the case to the police for further investigation, reasoning that they had failed to question O.B. or to identify witnesses to the event, etc.
On 10/10/2014 the police closed the criminal proceedings for lack of evidence, given that there had been no witnesses to the event, no data had been found proving that O.B. had inflicted injuries and that the injuries had only been minor.
On 07/12/2015 the Kyivskyi Court overturned the above-mentioned decision as premature, given that the police had failed to question the applicant’s neighbours and O.B., and had failed to question the applicant and O.B. simultaneously. The court remitted the case file to the police for further investigation.
On 20/05/2014 the applicant told the police that following a verbal altercation, O.B. had grabbed her hair and dragged her along the floor, but when she had got up, he had pressed his fingers in her eyes. Later, he had approached her with a half-full plastic bottle of water and had hit her with the bottle neck on her nose, under her left eye, front, lips and her right temple.
On 17/08/2014 the police questioned neighbours L. and S., who stated that they had not known the applicant and O.B., nor had they any knowledge of the fights between them.
4.
01/09/2014
02/09/2014
The following injuries were classified as minor:
abrasions on the applicant’s arms, a bruise on her left arm and her left leg.
On 02/09/2014 the police opened criminal case no. 12043220490003979 under Article 125 § 1 of the CCU concerning the infliction of minor injuries on the applicant.
On 27/09/2014 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence, particularly on the grounds that no circumstances indicated that O.B. had deliberately inflicted injuries on the applicant.
On 07/12/2015 the Kyivskyi Court overturned that decision as premature, given that the police had failed to question the applicant’s daughter, and the applicant and O.B. simultaneously.
On 11/09/2014 the police questioned the applicant, who had explained that on the morning of 01/09/2014, following a verbal fight with O.B., he had grabbed her right hand, pressed her body against the wall and had held (хапав) her neck, arms and shoulders. In the evening of the same day, following another fight, O.B. had hit her head on a doorway.
On 25/09/2015 the police questioned O.B., who denied hitting the applicant.
5.
07/09/2014 at around 9.15 p.m.;
08/09/2014 at around 8.30 p.m.
09/09/2014
The following injuries were classified as minor:
a bruise on the head and arms.
On 09/09/2014 the police opened criminal case no. 120141220490004118 under Article 125 § 1 of the CCU concerning the infliction of minor injuries on the applicant.
On 12/10/2014 the police reviewed a partial recording of a dispute.
On 13/10/2014 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence, as no circumstances indicated that the injuries had been inflicted deliberately.
On 07/12/2015 the Kyivskyi Court annulled that decision as premature, given that the police had failed to question the applicant’s neighbours and O.B., and had failed to question the applicant and O.B. simultaneously. The court remitted the case file to the police for further investigation.
On 07/09/2014 the applicant told the police that O.B. had come home around 9 p.m. after taking a walk with their minor son. O.B. had started throwing away the clothes from a closet. Following an altercation, O.B. had held her neck and hit her arms and legs.
On 18/09/2014 the police questioned B. She testified that on 07/09/2014 she had seen her father hitting her mother in her jaw, chest and back. She confirmed that a fight had taken place on 01/09/2014.
On 25/09/2014 O.B. testified to the police that he had had a fight with the applicant, but he had not hit her.
6.
23/11/2014 at around 11 p.m.
28/11/2014
The following injuries were classified as minor:
bruises on the applicant’s arms, body and legs, an abrasion on her right hand.
On 24/11/2014 the police opened criminal case no. 12014220490005560 under Article 125 § 1 of the CCU concerning the infliction of minor injuries on the applicant.
On 22/12/2014 the police closed the criminal case on the grounds that B.O. had objected to the applicant’s accusations, and the statements of the applicant’s daughter could not be taken into account, as the applicant had a psychological influence on her. No other witnesses had been identified.
On 07/12/2015 the Kyivskyi Court annulled that decision as premature, ordering the police to carry out the necessary procedural actions in order to establish the circumstances of the event.
On 18/12/2014 the police questioned the applicant. She stated that the fight had broken out after the applicant had asked her former husband, who had brought back their son from a walk, to leave as it had been time to go to bed.
On 15/12/2014 the police questioned O.B., who denied hitting the applicant.
On 15/12/2014 the police questioned the applicant’s daughter., B. and a neighbour, S.
7.
31/05/2015 at around 9.30 p.m.
02/06/2015 and 05/06/2015
The applicant’s injuries were classified as minor.
The parties did not provide copies of these documents.
On 01/06/2015 the police opened criminal case no. 12015220490002631 into infliction of minor injuries on the applicant.
On 03/06/2015, following a complaint by O.B., the police opened a criminal case into his attack. O.B. explained that following a verbal altercation, the applicant had hit him with a baking tray on his head. The applicant had also pulled his hair.
On 30/06/2015 the police closed criminal case no. 12015220490002631 for lack of evidence, reasoning that the applicant and O.B. had a mutual conflict, that they had both complained to the police and that the applicant had not been subjected to a forensic medical examination of her injuries.
On 14/04/2016 the Kyivskyi Court overturned that decision as premature, given that the investigator had failed to request a copy of the medical forensic report, but closed the case.
The applicant told the police that O.B. had pushed her in the face, then, while holding her hair, he had dragged her along the floor and hit her arms and legs.