Published on 22 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 3457/20
Volodymyr Andriyovych MANAYEV
against Ukraine
lodged on 4 January 2020
communicated on 3 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application emanates from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine.
The applicant, a civilian, states that in the morning of 6 February 2015 two members of the Ukrainian special police force “Kyiv-2”, dressed in military uniform with insignia and armed with guns, came to his place of work in Donske, Donetsk region, and forced him into a military vehicle. The incident was video recorded by the surveillance cameras at the applicant’s place of work.
According to the applicant, he was taken to the building of a Ukrainian military checkpoint in Buhas, Donetsk region. There, the people in military uniform handcuffed him to a radiator, asserted pressure onto his neck, and beat him on numerous occasions. He remained detained for around 24 hours. He did not receive food or water and was allowed to use the sanitary facilities only once.
The applicant states that while he was in detention, the representatives of the Ukrainian special police force “Kyiv-2” repeatedly called his mother, S.N., and requested that she hand over a vehicle that the applicant had allegedly been in possession of illegally. S.N. was threatened that she would “receive her son’s dead body in a parcel” should she disobey the order.
According to the applicant, in the afternoon of 6 February 2015 S.N. arrived at the Ukrainian military checkpoint in Buhas, where she received an oral confirmation that her son was being held at the location. S.N. was not allowed to see or contact the applicant.
The applicant states that at around 9 a.m. on 7 February 2015 people in military uniform blindfolded him, placed him into a vehicle and transferred him to a local quarry in Donske where they beat him with their fists and kicked him on the head, back and stomach. They also cut the skin on his back with a razor. When the applicant lost consciousness, they left him near the quarry and departed.
After the applicant had regained consciousness, he walked to his house in Donske and requested medical aid. He was diagnosed with a concussion, an incised wound on his back, an eye haemorrhage and multiple bruises.
Domestic remedies attempted by the applicant and S.N.
On 6 February 2015 S.N. reported the applicant’s apprehension to the Volnovakha district police office. A criminal investigation was initiated on the same day.
On 7 February 2015 a separate criminal investigation was initiated following the applicant’s request for medical aid. The two investigations were subsequently merged. The law enforcement authorities seized the videorecording of the applicant’s apprehension, interviewed him as a victim, and analysed S.N.’s telephone communications on the day of the applicant’s apprehension.
On 10 June 2019, following a separate criminal complaint lodged by S.N., the State Bureau of Investigations – the specialised body established to investigate crime committed by law enforcement officers – started an investigation into the applicant’s apprehension and interviewed S.N.
The Court has not been informed of any further developments in either of the investigations.
According to the applicant, at the end of 2019 he came to the conclusion that the ongoing investigations were ineffective and lodged his application with the Court.
COMPLAINTS
Invoking the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment by representatives of the Ukrainian special police force “Kyiv-2”.
Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicant complains of his detention which, according to him, had no legal basis.
Under the procedural limb of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged failure of the law enforcement authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the incident.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as in force on the date of introduction of his application? In particular, has he complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies and in bringing his case to the Court (Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Melnichuk and Others v. Romania, nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015)?
2. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment by Ukrainian law enforcement officers, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, has an effective investigation been conducted by the Ukrainian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to submit updated information about all developments in the criminal investigations.