FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KYRYK AND GONCHAR v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 6200/25 and 7881/25)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 April 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kyryk and Gonchar v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 of the Convention5. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 2 of the Convention.
6. The Court notes at the outset that the present case falls to be examined from the perspective of the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation were summarised in Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC] (no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015). In particular, once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the procedural requirement of Article 2 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness of the investigation, the involvement of the deceased person’s family, and the independence of the investigation. These elements are inter‑related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself (ibid., § 225).
7. Moreover, this is not an obligation of results to be achieved but of means to be employed. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the claimant’s account of events. However, it should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).
8. Reviewing the facts of the present applications in the light of the principles mentioned above, the Court considers that the investigation was marked by various shortcomings, which had undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the circumstances of the life-threatening accident, and who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.
9. In the leading cases of Kachurka v. Ukraine (no. 4737/06, 15 September 2011), Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine (no. 42752/08, 17 October 2013), and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151/10, 5 November 2015), 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 the investigation in the applications as described below failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 2 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Basyuk, cited above, §§ 74-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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 amounts 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 16 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 2 of the Convention
(ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Background to the case and domestic proceedings
Key issues
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
6200/25
13/02/2025
Stefaniya Mykhaylivna KYRYK
1987
Stavruk Nataliya Zinoviyivna
Lviv
On 12/08/2018 the applicant’s husband rode a motorcycle, having collided with a car driven by V. The applicant’s husband sustained severe injuries. A criminal case was opened. On 25/08/2018 the applicant’s husband died in the hospital.
Despite multiple requests to the investigators, the applicant was only granted victim status in the criminal proceedings on 14/11/2018. Investigators carried out several investigative actions and questioned witnesses. On 26/12/2018 the case was closed due to a lack of evidence of a criminal offense. Expert conclusions stated that V. had no technical possibility to avoid the collision.
However, on 12/01/2019 the investigative judge overturned the decision to close the case, doubting the thoroughness and completeness of the investigation. Following the reopening, a crime scene reconstruction was carried out with the participation of the applicant, along with forensic metallurgical and engineering examinations of the motorcycle.
On 31/03/2021 the case was closed again due to the absence of a criminal offense. On 11/05/2021 the investigative judge annulled that decision, deeming it premature and highlighting the investigators’ failure to exhaust all means of verifying key circumstances and to adequately address the arguments raised by the applicant.
It remains unclear whether any further investigative actions were taken, aside from the appointment of a road traffic technical examination in 2022. On 24/06/2024 the expert report concluded that the traffic organisation at the intersection where the accident occurred did not comply with regulatory standards. On 29/08/2024 the investigative judge closed the case, finding no traffic violations by V. directly linked to the accident.
On 14/10/2024 the appellate court upheld the first-instance decision and dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against the closure of the criminal case.
Investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine, no. 42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),
lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case (Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),
repeated remittals of the case for additional investigation owing to the insufficiency of the measures taken by the investigators (Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011),
applicant’s rights as a victim were not properly safeguarded (Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 74, 4 April 2006; Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 56, 20 December 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012)
6,000
250
7881/25
23/02/2025
Mykhaylo Ivanovych GONCHAR
1950
Sobyna
Pavlo Mykolayovych
Okhtyrka
On 29/07/2019 the applicant, while riding a scooter, was cut off by a car driven by P. The applicant fell and received injuries classified as moderate by a forensic medical expert. Criminal proceedings were initiated on the following day. On 19/03/2020 P. was served with a notice of suspicion and the two-month period of pre-trial investigation began. An indictment was issued on 17/06/2020 and was sent to a trial court on 22/06/2020. On 24/06/2020 the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings.
On 15/09/2021 the local court convicted P. of violation of the traffic rules and sentenced him to two years of community service. On 20/10/2025 the Sumy Court of Appeal quashed the verdict and terminated criminal proceedings. The appellate court held that pursuant to mandatory legal provisions the criminal proceedings had to be terminated because the two-month pre-trial investigation time-limit had expired and had never been extended by the investigating authorities, while the bill of indictment was submitted to the trial court after the expiry of that period.
Investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine, no. 42752/08
6,000
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.