FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BULAKH v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 1380/25)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bulakh v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Vahe Grigoryan,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 June 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 December 2024.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
THE LAWTHE LOCUS STANDI OF MRs NATALIYA SERGIYIVNA BULAKH4. Since the applicant went missing in action on 12 June 2025 in Donetsk region, on 30 November 2025, his wife, Mrs Nataliya Sergiyivna Bulakh, has expressed her intention to pursue the application on his behalf. The Court notes that in various cases, where applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the wishes of their heirs or close members of their families to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, X. v. France, Series A no. 234-C, p. 89, § 26, and Jama v. Slovenia, no. 48163/08, § 28, 19 July 2012). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case where the disappearance occurred in life-threatening circumstances during combat operations, and the applicant had not been heard of or seen since (see, among many judgments, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 143, ECHR 2009) and, therefore, accepts that the applicant’s wife, Mrs Nataliya Sergiyivna Bulakh, can pursue the application initially brought by him. However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention5. The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into ill‑treatment inflicted by a private party. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
6. The Court notes at the outset that the treatment in question fell within the scope of the above Article. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation of alleged ill‑treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003‑XII, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 99, 17 December 2009). The minimum standards of effectiveness laid down by the Court’s case-law include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, mutatis mutandis, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).
7. The procedural requirements of Article 3 go beyond the preliminary investigation stage when the investigation leads to legal action being taken before the national courts: the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of Article 3. This means that the domestic judicial authorities must on no account be prepared to let the physical or psychological suffering inflicted go unpunished. This is essential for maintaining the public’s confidence in, and support for, the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of the authorities’ tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006 XII (extracts)).
8. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the authorities, who were empowered to open and conduct a criminal investigation, did not make a genuine attempt to take a prompt and thorough examination of the matter, establish the facts and, if necessary, bring those responsible to account. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.
9. In the leading case of Muta v. Ukraine (no. 37246/06, 31 July 2012) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pobokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 30726/14, 6 April 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides that Mrs Nataliya Sergiyivna Bulakh, the wife of the applicant, has locus standi in the proceedings; Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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.Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Background to the case and domestic proceedings
Key issues
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros)[1]
1380/25
21/12/2024
Volodymyr Volodymyrovych BULAKH
1977
On 10/04/2022 P. allegedly kicked the applicant in the genital area, forced him to the ground, then sat on him and punched him in the head. In his report of 11/04/2022 the expert concluded that the applicant had bruises and abrasions on his torso, neck and left upper limb, as well as bruises on his head caused by a blunt, hard object. These injuries were classified as minor bodily harm with insignificant temporary consequences.
On 16/04/2022 a criminal investigation was open. On 31/05/2022, after establishing that there were no witnesses to the incident, the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings. However, on 15/06/2022 that decision was overturned by the prosecutor due to the investigator’s failure to conduct a series of investigative actions. Several months later the investigator was brought to disciplinary responsibility for procedural violations, including the termination of the proceedings for lack of witnesses while the applicant claimed that there were two.
On 25/08/2022 the investigator tried again to terminate the criminal proceedings due to the absence of a criminal offence (no witnesses who had seen the applicant being physically assaulted were found) but revoked the decision before appeal proceedings against it had started.
On 23/08/2024 the applicant was officially recognised as a victim in the case and was questioned as such.
Between September 2024 and May 2025, the investigator was provided with instructions regarding the conduct of the investigation on five occasions. Questioning of witnesses, including P., and an investigative experiment took place during this same period.
The most recent developments in the criminal investigation are the expert conclusions of 15/05/2025 and 19/05/2025, which relate to the injuries sustained by the applicant. The investigation is still pending.
The applicant went missing in action on 12/06/2025 in Donetsk region.
Shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 65, 31 July 2012),
overall protracted character of the investigation and court proceedings (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 65, 31 July 2012),
failure to secure the applicant’s right to participate effectively in the investigation (Chernega and Others v. Ukraine, no. 74768/10, § 165-166, 18 June 2019, with further references)
3,000
Heir in application no. 1380/25
Decedent
Heir
Volodymyr Volodymyrovych BULAKH
Missing in life-threatening circumstances
Nataliya Sergiyivna BULAKH
Born in 1982
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.