FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SINKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 1516/21 and 2 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 April 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sinko and others 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 principally of the ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings concerning the deaths of their relatives as a result of medical negligence. 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 procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in the context of healthcare. The relevant general principles were summarised in Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal ([GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017).
7. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the domestic proceedings were marked by various shortcomings which undermined the ability of the authorities to establish the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the applicants’ next of kin and to identify who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.
8. In the leading cases of Arskaya v. Ukraine (no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013) and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03, 16 January 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 (see, for illustrative purposes, Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee] (no. 65663/12, 28 July 2016) and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee] (no. 63126/13, 4 November 2021)), the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic proceedings failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS11. In applications no. 1516/21 and 44287/21, the applicants also raised complaints under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the complaints raised and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, § 104, and Tretyakova, also cited above, § 43), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings concerning the deaths of the applicants’ relatives as a result of medical negligence admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 1516/21 and 44287/21 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb; 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.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
(ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings concerning the death of the applicant’s relative as a result of medical negligence)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Background to the case
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]
1516/21
18/12/2020
Anatoliy Leonidovych SINKO
1959
Solodovnyk Sergiy Oleksandrovych
Slobozhanske Dnipropetrovsk region
Circumstances of the incident
On 26/08/2011 the applicant’s mother was admitted to a hospital for a planned examination and further treatment of osteoarthrosis of her knee. After being examined by doctor S., several other health problems were established, and at the doctor’s advice, the patient agreed to undergo a surgery to remove an abdominal hernia. The surgery was carried out on 06/09/2011. On the next day, the patient’s health condition started deteriorating rapidly, and on 09/09/2011 she died because of the exacerbation of the cardiovascular disease.
Criminal and internal investigation
On the hospital’s own motion, an internal medical examination was carried out, which established several significant shortcomings in the preoperative examination, the surgery itself and postoperative care, which led to the applicant’s mother’s death. This conclusion was confirmed by the examination by the regional health administration.
On 25/12/2011 criminal proceedings were instituted. The investigator ordered a forensic medical examination (no. 171), which identified several shortcomings in the medical treatment of the applicant’s mother by doctor S. On 05/07/2012 the applicant was granted a victim status. On 03/08/2012 doctor S. was charged with committing a crime of medical negligence which led to the death of a patient. However, due to procedural shortcomings and violation of doctor S.’s defence rights, the prosecutor returned the case for an additional investigation and required the investigator to order an additional forensic examination. The second forensic examination was commissioned to the same experts. The conclusions of the second examination confirmed the findings of the first one. On 29/04/2013 the bill of indictment was drawn up.
On 11/12/2013 the trial court found doctor S. guilty; the appellate court changed the sanction upholding the rest of the judgment. However, by its decision of 20/11/2014 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and returned the case for reconsideration to the appellate court.
On 31/03/2015 the appellate court ordered another forensic examination (no. 81/к), which concluded that the applicant’s mother had not had specific contraindications for the surgery, and that despite several shortcomings in the doctor S.’s actions, there was no direct causal link with the patient’s death. On 24/09/2015 the appellate court returned the case to the trial court. Further, the bill of indictment was returned to the prosecutor twice; following the appeals from both parties, the case was remitted for new consideration by the court several times. On 10/01/2019 the trial court acquitted doctor S. relying mainly on the conclusion of the forensic examination no. 81/к and having dismissed the previous expert examinations as inadmissible evidence. By its final decision of 17/06/2020, the Supreme Court in the applicant’s absence, upheld that judgment.
In particular, the courts noted that, in violation of the law, the expert examinations of 2012 and 2013 were performed with participation of surgeon B., was also a member of the internal medical commissions; the prosecutor returned the case for additional investigation precisely due to defects in performing the expert examination of 2012 (violation of doctor S.’s right to defence), the additional forensic examination of 2013 was commissioned to the same experts having performed forensic examination of 2012; therefore, both expert examinations were inadmissible evidence as well as questioning of the experts having performed those examinations. Further, the courts could not establish a direct causal link between the doctor S’s actions and the applicant’s mother’s death as there were other doctors involved in her post-operative medical treatment, and their actions were not assessed during the investigation.
Investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (see Marchuk
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, § 35, 28 July 2016),
remittals of the case on account of shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,
16 January 2014),
undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05,
§ 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,
16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee],
no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,
4 November 2021),
failure to establish the essential facts of the case and possible errors in the medical treatment provided (see Ioniță v. Romania, no. 81270/12, § 83, 10 January 2017; Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 159, 18 July 2017; Lukashenko v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 33944/13,
§ 30, 11 September 2025)
6,000
17167/21
12/03/2021
Oleg Petrovych KARPENKO
1974
Davydko Igor Anatoliyovych
Sumy
Circumstances of the incident
The applicant’s father, 79 years old at that time, had kidney and urinary chronic diseases. On 28/03/2015 he started feeling unwell, and on 02/04/2015 he was taken by an ambulance to a district hospital in Sumy. After several medical examinations, on 07/04/2015 the applicant’s father was transported to the regional hospital with a specialised urinary department, and on the same day he underwent an urgent surgery. Two hours after the surgery the applicant’s father was transported back to the district hospital. Upon arrival, the applicant’s father’s condition worsened, and on the same day he died. The applicant refused to carry out a post-mortem examination. He argued that his father died due to the inappropriate medical treatment and conditions of transportation.
Criminal investigation
On 21/12/2015 criminal proceedings were instituted. On 14/06/2016 a forensic medical examination concluded that there were no signs of negligence on the part of the medical staff; it was impossible to establish the exact reason of the death in the absence of a post-mortem examination; there were no contraindications to the transportation of the applicant’s father either before or after the surgery. The applicant requested other forensic examinations, which on 15/02/2018 and 10/02/2021 respectively reached the same conclusions. On 06/04/2021 criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the lack of evidence of crime. On 19/01/2023 the investigating judge quashed that decision for failure of the authorities to carry out the necessary investigating actions, access the evidence and substantiate the termination of investigation, and the investigation was resumed.
Investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (see Marchuk
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, § 35, 28 July 2016),
undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05,
§ 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,
16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee],
no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,
4 November 2021)
6,000
250
44287/21
27/08/2021
Yuriy Yakovych PUSHKAR
1950
Tokarev Gennadiy Volodymyrovych
Kharkiv
Circumstances of the incident
On 29/09/2009 the applicant’s son, 27 years old at the time, was admitted to a hospital with acute pancreatitis. After several days of intensive therapy, on 13/10/2009 he died of severe complications. The applicant alleged that the death was due to serious intervention in the form of a blood purification procedure to which his son did not consent, failure to test his son’s tolerance of medical preparations, and errors in diagnosing and treating his son.
Criminal and internal investigation
In December 2009 an investigator started pre-investigative inquiries, but repeatedly refused to open a criminal investigation. A post-mortem examination commenced on 14/10/2009 and was completed on 14/01/2010. The applicant alleged that, during that period, the medical staff forged the medical documentation by changing some of the records and forging his son’s signature. The investigators have never examined those allegations. The experts concluded that the applicant’s son died as a result of intoxication and other complications of pancreatitis. On 21/03/2011 a commission of the Ministry of Health found several errors that had aggravated the applicant’s son’s state of health but concluded that the treatment had been adequate in general. On 16/12/2012 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 140 § 1 of the Criminal Code (medical negligence), after the new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force leaving no discretion for the investigator. On 30/01/2013 the investigator terminated the proceedings due to lack of evidence of crime, but that decision was later quashed. In the following years, the applicant repeatedly complained of the investigator’s inactivity, and another investigator was appointed. The inactivity of both investigators was confirmed by a supervising police department and by a prosecutor. The investigator was not replying to the applicant’s requests. No medical personnel has been questioned during the investigation. On 20/06/2018 a forensic medical examination confirmed that the medical treatment was adequate. The applicant did not agree with this conclusion and requested an additional examination. On 25/06/2020 a new forensic medical examination was ordered but it was never executed. On 27/01/2025 the investigation was closed due to lack of evidence of crime.
Refusal to institute and/or delay in instituting criminal proceedings (see Arskaya
v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 158, 18 July 2017; Zhukov and Zhukova
v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 60191/16 and foll., § 21, 3 July 2025; Lukashenko
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 33944/13, § 29, 11 September 2025),
undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05,
§ 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,
16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee],
no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,
4 November 2021),
investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (see Marchuk
v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, § 35, 28 July 2016)
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.