FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VLADYKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 26341/17 and 3 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vladyka and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
María Elósegui, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 June 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. 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 FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into ill‑treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents. In application no. 32046/18, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 3 of the Convention6. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into ill‑treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.
7. The Court notes at the outset that the treatment in question fell within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. 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).
8. 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)).
9. 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.
10. In the leading case of Muta v. Ukraine (no. 37246/06, 31 July 2012) the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.
11. 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 investigations failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. In application no. 32046/18 the applicant submitted other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the case set out in the appended table.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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 and to reject the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 26341/17.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) 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;
(b) 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 applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 26341/17.Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications 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)
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
26341/17
30/03/2017
AND
32046/18
19/06/2018
Roman Mykhaylovych VLADYKA
1980
On 01/11/2014 the applicant was beaten by private persons, whom he allegedly knew and recognised. Criminal investigation was instituted into the incident on the following day.
Alleged perpetrators and witnesses identified by the applicant in October 2015 were only questioned in May and June 2016. On 21/10/2015 the Sokalskyy District Court of Lviv Region acknowledged the deficiencies of the investigation as to the inactivity of the investigator, namely, concerning his failure to question witnesses and ordered the investigator to carry out all necessary investigative actions.
On 24 /11/2015 the Sokalskyy District Court of Lviv Region granted the applicant’s challenge to the investigator’s participation in the criminal proceedings due to his complete inactivity. On 21/01, 14/04 and 02/07/2016, in response to the applicant’s complaints about the inactivity of the investigators, the prosecutor’s office informed him that relevant instructions had been given to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation. As follows from the information in the case file, during 2016 the police conducted several interrogations of witnesses and additionally questioned the applicant.
On 27/10/2017, following the interrogation of other witnesses and the counter-interrogation of the persons identified by the applicant, the criminal proceedings were closed for lack of evidence of a crime. On 30/11/2018 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision, as it was established that the investigator had not complied with the procedural requirements and had not taken into account the applicant’s arguments. The court noted, in particular, that the investigator had not conducted any investigative actions to establish the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony and had not checked their whereabouts at the time of the incident. The case was remitted for further investigation, and since then the parties have not been informed of any further developments in the case.
Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly
(Skorokhodov v. Ukraine,
no. 56697/09, §§ 34-35, 14 November 2013);
groundless and significant periods of inactivity
(Muta v. Ukraine,
no. 37246/06, § 65,
31 July 2012);
shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves
(Muta v. Ukraine,
no. 37246/06, § 65,
31 July 2012).
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - between
5.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 26/11/2016:
unacknowledged deprivation of liberty or delay in drawing up arrest report
(Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine,
no. 43611/02, §§ 113-15, 15 October 2015, Grubnyk v. Ukraine,
no. 58444/15, §§ 71-73, 17 September 2020, and Fortalnov and Others
v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)
3,900
-
3452/20
23/12/2019
Roman Myroslavovych YAKIMOV
1991
Mytsyk Oleg Volodymyrovych
Lviv
On 23/09/2012, the applicant was assaulted by two minors, P. and O.; P. several times hit the applicant with a wooden bat on the head, while O. kicked the applicant. On 28/09/2012 and 19/10/2012, the police refused to initiate criminal proceedings, citing lack of evidence of a criminal activity. In the meantime, a forensic medical examination conducted on 17/10/2012 revealed that the applicant had sustained life-threatening severe bodily harm. It was not until 22/11/2012 that a prosecutor’s office initiated a pre-trial investigation into the intentional infliction of severe bodily harm on the applicant. On 08/02/2013 a forensic medical examination confirmed the life-threatening severe bodily harm suffered by the applicant on 23/09/2012. On 06/06/2013 an act of indictment was prepared, and the case was submitted to the court for consideration; P. and O. were accused of intentional grievous bodily harm committed by a group. On 02/07/2015 a local court sentenced P. and O. to 4 years and 6 months’, and 3 years’ imprisonment respectively (with the latter sentence postponed on probation for one year).
Additionally, the court awarded the applicant damages. On 25/12/2015 a court of appeal overturned this verdict, ordering a new review of the case. The appellate court identified several deficiencies, including the failure to address the motives of the accused persons, to access witness statements, and noted discrepancies between the oral delivery of the sentence and the written record, such as missing signatures and witness statements. On 09/12/2016 the court appointed a forensic medical expert upon the applicant’s request in which he had asked to establish the exact circumstances in which he had sustained the injuries and to find whether the injuries resulted from P. and O.’s actions. The proceedings resumed in
May 2017 after the expert conclusion had been delivered. Finally, on 02/10/2018
a local court imposed sentences of
five and three years’ imprisonment on P. and O., respectively, and once again awarded the applicant damages.
O. and P. were convicted of hooliganism committed with the use of an object adapted or prepared in advance for inflicting bodily harm, and with intentional grievous bodily harm. However, the verdict was overturned by a court of appeal on 16/05/2019, as it had been delivered by a judge who had been dismissed from his post earlier that day. On 24/06/2020 P. and O. were discharged from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period, and the criminal proceedings were terminated; the court did not examine the applicant’s civil claim.
Overall protracted character of the investigation and court proceedings
(Muta v. Ukraine,
no. 37246/06, § 65,
31 July 2012);
shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves
(Muta v. Ukraine,
no. 37246/06, § 65,
31 July 2012).
3,000
250
34046/20
01/08/2020
Larysa Yuriyivna FYSUN
1980
On 02/05/2019, at about 8 a.m., when the applicant and her daughter were walking to school, a cyclist rode towards her and hit her, causing her to fall on the pavement. The applicant also claimed that the cyclist had threatened her and having said that he had to go to work, rode off. She was taken to a hospital, where doctors diagnosed her with a concussion, bruises to the left side of her body, a head injury and a cracked knee. On the next day the local police instituted criminal proceedings. On 22/06/2019 a police investigator terminated the proceedings due to the lack of constituent elements of a crime.
By a letter dated 04/06/2020 the applicant was notified about that decision. On 15/06/2020, upon the applicant’s complaint, an investigating judge set aside the above decision as premature and remitted the case for further investigation. In particular, the judge noted that the applicant’s statements had not been checked; the investigator’s version of events was not corroborated by any evidence; a forensic medical examination of her injuries had not been carried out; no investigative steps had been taken in order to establish a perpetrator of the crime and witnesses of the incident and to question the witnesses. On 27/01/2021 the police investigator again terminated the proceedings due to the lack of constituent elements of a crime.
On 13/05/2021 the investigating judge set aside the above decision as premature due to the investigator’s failure to properly investigate the circumstances of the case and to examine the evidence.
On 08/09/2021 and on 18/02/2022 the investigating judge accepted the applicant’s complaints concerning the protracted pre-trial investigation and the inaction of the investigators. On 30/08/2022 the court of first instance terminated the proceedings due to the expiry of the limitation period. On 02/02/2023 a court of appeal upheld this decision. On 22/06/2023 the Supreme Court quashed that decision as unlawful and premature and sent the case for reconsideration to the trial court.
It found that the investigating authorities had failed to comply with the requirements of the procedural law regarding a comprehensive and full investigation of all the circumstances of the case.
On 13/12/2023 the trial court again allowed the prosecutor’s request and terminated the proceedings due to the expiry of the limitation period.
On 28/02/2024 the court of appeal quashed that decision and ordered the case to be returned to the investigating authorities as it was established that no investigative measures had been taken to identify the person involved in the crime. The investigation is currently ongoing.
Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly
(Skorokhodov v. Ukraine,
no. 56697/09,
§§ 34-35,
14 November 2013);
groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenko
v. Ukraine,
no. 54755/08, § 45,
14 November 2013);
shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves
(Muta v. Ukraine,
no. 37246/06, § 65,
31 July 2012);
groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenko
v. Ukraine,
no. 54755/08, § 45,
14 November 2013).
3,000
-
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.