Communicated on 6 October 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 49932/11
Vitaliy Ivanovich ZEMLYANSKIKH
against Ukraine
lodged on 1 August 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Ivanovich Zemlyanskikh, is a Russian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Gomel.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the relevant time the applicant lived in Chernihiv, Ukraine.
On 7 July 2010 the applicant’s female neighbour called the police claiming that the applicant behaved inappropriately. The police replied that they would arrive and check the matter.
On the same day two police officers stopped the applicant near the entrance into the building in which he lived and took him to the local police department. The applicant was charged with an administrative offence of minor disorderly conduct. The applicant’s neighbour was also at the department.
According to the applicant, he was beaten up by police officers as he had refused to confess to some rapes and murders.
In the evening of the same day the applicant left the police department. Once he was released, the applicant attended the local traumatology centre where he was diagnosed with concussion. Hematomas on both wrists and the trunk were also identified.
On 8 July 2010 the applicant complained to the Chernihiv City Prosecutor’s Office on account of police brutality.
On 9 July 2010 the applicant underwent tomographic examination which showed that he suffered from intracranial hypertension. On the same day a neurologist confirmed that the applicant had sustained concussion and recommended inpatient neurologic treatment.
On 12 July 2010 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant suffered from concussion which had been caused by blunt and solid object. According to the report, the injury might have been sustained on 7 July 2010.
On 14 July 2010 the Chernihiv City Prosecutor’s Office, having conducted the pre-investigation enquiries, refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. According to the decision, there had been no evidence suggesting that the police officers had abused their powers.
The applicant challenged that decision before the courts.
On 13 September 2010 the Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernihiv (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s complaint finding that the decision of 14 July 2010 was lawful and substantiated. The applicant appealed.
On 5 November 2010 the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 13 September 2011 as unsubstantiated and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.
On 17 December 2010 the first-instance court quashed the decision of 14 July 2010 finding that the Chernihiv City Prosecutor’s Office had not taken all the steps to examine the allegations of the applicant. In particular, the prosecutor’s office had failed to examine the circumstances in which the injuries had been sustained by the applicant.
On 31 January 2011 the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision of 17 December 2010.
On the same day the Chernihiv City Prosecutor’s Office, having conducted additional pre-investigation enquiries, refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of any evidence that they had abused their powers.
The applicant challenged that decision before the first-instance court.
On 3 December 2012 the first-instance court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 31 January 2011 for the reason that the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging the complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (which was in force at the time when the impugned decision had been taken) and that the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012 did not provide for the judicial review of such decisions.
On 8 January 2013 the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision of 3 December 2012.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers and that he had no effective remedies in respect of that allegation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy