Published on 5 February 2024
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 29208/18
Mariya Mykhaylivna KAPRALYOVA and Others
against Ukraine
lodged on 10 June 2018
communicated on 16 January 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
On 11 December 2017 the police allegedly forcibly entered the applicants’ homes, conducted searches, punched the applicants, verbally insulted them referring to their Roma origin, kept some of them outside lightly dressed, and prohibited the second applicant from administrating insulin to the first applicant. The male applicants were handcuffed and brought to a police station. They were released after several hours.
The applicants complained to the prosecutors about the incidents on 11 December 2017. A criminal investigation into their complaints was closed several times and resumed following the applicants’ appeals. It is unknown whether the investigation remains pending or was terminated.
Before the Court the applicants allege that they were ill-treated by the police (Article 3 of the Convention), that the male applicants were unlawfully detained at the police station for several hours (Article 5 of the Convention) and that their homes were forcibly entered into and searched (Article 8 of the Convention). The applicants also complain, invoking Articles 3 and 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that they were targeted because of their Roma origin.
The details as regards the applicants are set out in the appendix.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Has there been a discriminatory difference in treatment in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Were the applicants nos 3, 4, 5 and 7 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of this provision? Was the applicants’ detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for their homes, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Has there been a discriminatory difference in treatment in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
APPENDIX
Application no. 29208/18
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Mariya Mykhaylivna KAPRALYOVA
1960
Ukrainian
Boryslav
2.
Mariya Vasylivna KAPRALYOVA
1991
Ukrainian
Boryslav
3.
Stepan Vasylyovych KAPRALYOV
1985
Ukrainian
Boryslav
4.
Vasyl Vasylyovych KAPRALYOV
1989
Ukrainian
Boryslav
5.
Sergiy Oleksandrovych DRAGUNOV
1983
Ukrainian
Boryslav
6.
Nina Petrivna DRAGUNOVA
1983
Ukrainian
Boryslav
7.
Artur Mykolayovych LATSKO
1985 (deceased in 2018, application pursued by Tetyana Mykolayivna LATSKO)
Ukrainian
Boryslav
8.
Khrystyna Volodymyrivna ANDYBUR
1969 (deceased in 2022, application pursued by Tetyana Mykolayivna LATSKO)
Ukrainian
Boryslav