{"id":16316,"date":"2021-09-16T09:07:18","date_gmt":"2021-09-16T09:07:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=16316"},"modified":"2021-09-22T06:57:54","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T06:57:54","slug":"case-of-makarenko-and-others-v-ukraine-european-court-of-human-rights-applications-nos-53747-09-and-4-others-see-appended-table","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=16316","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MAKARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 53747\/09 and 4 others \u2013 see appended table"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants alleged, in particular, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into their respective complaints was ineffective. In addition, one applicant (Mr\u00a0S. Oliynyk, application no.\u00a041415\/13) raised complaints under Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

\n

FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF MAKARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 53747\/09 and 4 others \u2013 see appended table)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 September 2021<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Makarenko and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President,
\nGanna Yudkivska,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

the applications (nos. 53747\/09, 41415\/13, 45940\/13, 46982\/13 and 50463\/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by five Ukrainian nationals, whose details are set out in the appended tables (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated in those tables;<\/p>\n

the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the complaints concerning police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation into the allegations in that regard (all applications) and allegedly unlawful and unreasonable deprivation of liberty (application no.\u00a041415\/13) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of applications nos.\u00a053747\/09, 45940\/13, and 50463\/13;<\/p>\n

the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 26 August 2021,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

\"INTRODUCTION\"<\/p>\n

1. The applicants alleged, in particular, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into their respective complaints was ineffective. In addition, one applicant (Mr\u00a0S. Oliynyk, application no.\u00a041415\/13) raised complaints under Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. The applicants\u2019 details and the relevant facts are set out in the appended tables.<\/p>\n

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Lishchyna.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. SCOPE OF THE CASE<\/p>\n

5. Mr S.\u00a0Oliynyk (application no.\u00a041415\/13) raised additional complaints after his application was communicated to the Government. He complained, under Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonable and the way in which the grounds for discontinuing them had been formulated had cast doubt on his innocence.<\/p>\n

6. In the Court\u2019s view, these are new complaints that were not included in the original complaints on which the parties have been invited to submit observations. The Court will therefore not take them up in the context of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788\/01, \u00a7\u00a020, 19\u00a0April 2005 and, as a more recent example, Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a05406\/07, \u00a7\u00a064, 2 October 2018).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED POLICE ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION<\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained, under various Convention provisions, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that there had not been an effective investigation into their ill-treatment allegations.<\/p>\n

8. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see, among other authorities, Barysheva v. Ukraine, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a045, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017), finds that the complaints in issue fall to be examined under Article\u00a03 of the Convention. Article 3 reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

9. The Court finds that the present complaints are neither manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n

10. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the general principles established in its case-law (see, as a recent authority, Bouyid v.\u00a0Belgium [GC], no.\u00a023380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a081-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), the Court considers that the applicants raised credible ill-treatment claims at the domestic level. Those claims triggered an obligation on the part of the national authorities to carry out an effective and thorough investigation with a view to establishing the origin of the applicants\u2019 alleged injuries as well as identifying and punishing those responsible, should the ill-treatment allegations prove to be true.<\/p>\n

11. Regard being had to the evidential gaps and contradictions in the domestic case files and in the factual submissions by the parties (see appended tables for details), the Court finds it impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicants had sustained injuries under the control of the police, as alleged. The Court considers that the difficulty in determining the substance of the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill-treatment stems from the authorities\u2019 failure to investigate their complaints effectively (see, in particular, Popa v.\u00a0Moldova, no.\u00a029772\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a039 and 45, 21\u00a0September\u00a02010; Grimailovs v.\u00a0Latvia, no. 6087\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0109 and 119, 25\u00a0June 2013; and Barysheva v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a055, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017).<\/p>\n

12. From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not reflect a serious effort to determine the relevant facts.<\/p>\n

13. The Court notes that in the case of Kaverzin (no. 23893\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0173\u201180, judgment of 15\u00a0May\u00a02012) it found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of ill-treatment complaints lodged against police authorities constituted a systemic problem within the meaning of Article\u00a046 of the Convention. In view of the circumstances of the present applications and its earlier case-law, the Court considers that they constitute another example of such a failure to ensure prompt and thorough investigation.<\/p>\n

14. The Court therefore concludes that the present complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER alleged violations of the convention IN APPLIcation no.\u00a041415\/13 (Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Oliynyk)<\/p>\n

15. Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Oliynyk also complained that on 11 April 2013 he had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty from about 6 a.m. until 7.20 p.m. (see appended tables 2-A (6) and 2\u2011B for details). He also complained that his subsequent detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons, in particular, because there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the incriminated offence. He invoked Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention to both of his aforementioned complaints and Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention to the complaint concerning the detention on remand.<\/p>\n

16. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that in the light of its findings in a number of other cases (see, in particular, Smolik v. Ukraine, no.\u00a011778\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a045-48, 19 January 2012; Creang\u0103 v.\u00a0Romania [GC], no. 29226\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 84 and 88-93, 23 February 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a074-78, 15\u00a0November\u00a02012; and Belousov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a085, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013) the complaint concerning arbitrary detention on 11\u00a0April\u00a02013 is admissible and discloses a violation of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

17. It further considers that it is not necessary to make an assessment of the admissibility and merits of the remainder of the complaints raised by Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Oliynyk under Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v.\u00a0Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7\u00a0156, ECHR 2014, and Borzykh and Others v.\u00a0Ukraine [Committee], no.\u00a05353\/14 and others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048-49, 25 June 2020).<\/p>\n

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

18. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the appended tables. It dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

20. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the complaints concerning the alleged police ill-treatment and ineffective investigation in that regard raised in all applications and the complaint concerning deprivation of liberty on 11\u00a0April\u00a02013 raised in application no.\u00a041415\/13 admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation concerning complaints of police ill-treatment raised by all applicants;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning deprivation of liberty on 11\u00a0April\u00a02013 raised in application no.\u00a041415\/13;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of other complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention in application no.\u00a041415\/13;<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended tables, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 September 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Martina Keller \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

_______________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
1. Application no.\u00a053747\/09<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Mr\u00a0Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Makarenko<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukrainian national born in 1988 and residing in Dnipro<\/p>\n

Represented by Ms\u00a0O.M.\u00a0Ashchenko[1]<\/sup><\/a> and Mr\u00a0V.E.\u00a0Pogasyan, lawyers practising in Kharkiv and Dnipro<\/p>\n

Lodged on 26\u00a0September\u00a02009<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
On 23 March 2008 the applicant was taken to the Kirovskyy district police station in Dnipropetrovsk and questioned by police officers concerning his alleged participation in the robbery and assault of K. In order to force him to confess, the officers repeatedly punched and threatened the applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 25\/03\/08 \u2013 certificate (Dnipropetrovsk municipal hospital no.\u00a011): closed cerebral injury; cerebral concussion; contusion of the abdominal organs and chest; bruising to face and head;<\/p>\n

(ii) 09\/06\/08 \u2013 report no.\u00a02400 (Dnipropetrovsk forensic medical expert bureau): injuries recorded on 25\/03\/08 cumulatively qualifying as minor, could have been sustained on 23\/03\/08 as described by applicant, who explained that \u201cunidentified persons\u201d had punched him on the head, limbs and torso.<\/p>\n

2. Ill-treatment complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n

Unspecified date prior to 19\/09\/08, with Kirovskyy district prosecutor\u2019s office in Dnipropetrovsk.<\/p>\n

3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 19\/09\/08, 01\/03\/10, 30\/08\/10 and 09\/09\/10 \u2013 decisions not to institute criminal proceedings: no appearance of police ill-treatment (Kirovskyy district prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(ii) 25\/06\/12 and 16\/07\/12 \u2013 appeals rejected (Kirovskyy District Court in Dnipropetrovsk and Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal respectively).<\/p>\n

4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n

Statements taken from police officers involved in applicant\u2019s questioning on 23\/03\/08: they denied any ill-treatment.<\/p>\n

5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n

No arguable police ill-treatment case; no findings concerning possible origin of documented injuries.<\/p>\n

6. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 23\/03\/08 \u2013 after having been questioned by police, applicant released under undertaking not to abscond;<\/p>\n

(ii) 04\/03\/09 \u2013 applicant and three others convicted of having assaulted and robbed K. (Kirovskyy District Court in Dnipropetrovsk);<\/p>\n

(iii) 07\/08\/09 and 11\/03\/10 \u2013 appeals by all defendants dismissed and their allegations of police ill\u2011treatment dismissed as unsubstantiated (Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal and Supreme Court).<\/td>\n

(i) First medical examinations conducted two days after applicant\u2019s release; no conclusive evidence indicating that injuries were sustained under police control (for relevant examples, see Kulyk v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a030760\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 82-83, 23 June 2016, and Barysheva v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no. 9505\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a055\u201156, 14 March 2017);<\/p>\n

(ii) No full-scale investigation, only repeated pre-investigation inquiry (for relevant examples, see, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a017674\/02 and 39081\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 310-12, 1\u00a0July 2010; Lyapin v. Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 129 and 132-36, 24 July 2014; and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 74768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019);<\/p>\n

(iii) No appearance of serious effort to collect objective evidence or establish origin of documented injuries: inquiry limited to questioning of police officers implicated in ill-treatment (for relevant examples, see Lopatin and Medvedskiy v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a02278\/03 and 6222\/03, \u00a7 67, 20\u00a0May 2010; Danilov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7 70, 13 March 2014; and Kirpichenko v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038833\/03, \u00a7\u00a085, 2\u00a0April\u00a02015).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

B<\/strong>. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> 30,000\u00a0euros (EUR).<\/p>\n

Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Claim exorbitant and unsubstantiated.<\/td>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a07,500<\/p>\n

plus any tax chargeable to applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2. Application no.\u00a041415\/13<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Mr Stanislav Fedorovych Oliynyk<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukrainian national born in 1982 and residing in Lyubymivka<\/p>\n

Represented by Mr S.M.\u00a0Doroshenko, a lawyer practising in Dnipro<\/p>\n

Lodged on 14\u00a0June\u00a02013<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
At about 6 a.m. on 11 April 2013, a group of police officers from the Dnipropetrovskyy district police arrived at the applicant\u2019s home and took him in for questioning in connection with the investigation into the violent death suffered by V.Ch. From about 8\u00a0a.m. until 9\u00a0a.m., while two police officers held him, two others beat the applicant on his head, back and torso in an attempt to pressure him into confessing to having inflicted fatal injuries on V.Ch. Subsequently, investigator V.F. gave the applicant a glass of water to drink, which apparently contained some dissolved psychotropic substance: it made the applicant feel disoriented and broke his moral resistance. He therefore confessed to the crime he had not committed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 11\/04\/13 \u2013 video-recording of \u201cinvestigative experiment\u201d: according to applicant, it shows him with bruise on his neck and being in convalescent disorientated state;<\/p>\n

(ii) 11\/04\/13 \u2013 fluorography certificate (Mechnikova Dnipropetrovsk regional hospital): no pathology;<\/p>\n

(iii) 02\/02\/16 \u2013 certificate (Dnipropetrovsk SIZO, medical unit): no injuries detected upon applicant\u2019s arrival; no health-related complaints received during period of detention (15\/04\/13 to 04\/09\/13);<\/p>\n

(iv) 30\/09\/13 \u2013 certificate (Dnipropetrovsk municipal district hospital): inpatient treatment (24\/09\/13 to 30\/09\/13) for acute glomerulonephritis.<\/p>\n

2. Ill-treatment complaints lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 17\/04\/13 \u2013 with Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (in appeal against decision remanding applicant in custody);<\/p>\n

(ii) 30\/04\/13 \u2013 with Dnipropetrovsk regional prosecutor\u2019s office (by applicant\u2019s father).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 02\/05\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings initiated (Dnipropetrovsk regional prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(ii) 21\/06\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed: no appearance of ill-treatment;<\/p>\n

(iii) 28\/08\/13 \u2013 investigation reopened (Dnipropetrovskyy District Court): shortcomings in investigation;<\/p>\n

(iv) 11\/10\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed (essentially same reasons as on 21\/06\/13).<\/p>\n

4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) Statements alleging ill-treatment obtained from applicant and his parents;<\/p>\n

(ii) Statements denying presence of injuries and applicant\u2019s allegations of being in convalescent disorientated state on 11\/04\/13 obtained from police officers, D.C. (applicant\u2019s first lawyer) and lay witnesses present during \u201cinvestigative experiment\u201d.<\/p>\n

5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n

No ill-treatment took place.<\/p>\n

6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 11\/04\/13, about 6\u00a0a.m. \u2013 applicant taken into police station for questioning concerning violent death of V.Ch.;<\/p>\n

(ii) 11\/04\/13, unspecified time, afternoon \u2013 applicant (questioned without lawyer) confessed to having beaten up V.Ch.;<\/p>\n

(iii) 11\/04\/13, about 4 p.m. \u2013 applicant engaged D.C. as lawyer;<\/p>\n

(iv) 11\/04\/13, about 7 p.m. \u2013 applicant took part in \u201cinvestigative experiment\u201d demonstrating how he had hit V.Ch. in presence of D.C., forensic expert and lay witnesses;<\/p>\n

(v) 11\/04\/13, 7.20 p.m. \u2013 applicant\u2019s arrest formalised in police report (Dnipropetrovskyy district police);<\/p>\n

(vi) 12\/04\/13 \u2013 applicant remanded in custody (Dnipropetrovskyy District Court);<\/p>\n

(vii) 16\/04\/13 \u2013 applicant engaged Mr S.\u00a0Doroshenko as lawyer;<\/p>\n

(viii) 17\/04\/13 \u2013 applicant appealed against decision to remand him in custody, alleging that he had been ill-treated in order to pressure him into giving false self-incriminating statements and retracting those statements;<\/p>\n

(ix) 01\/09\/16 \u2013 decision to drop charges (Dnipropetrovskyy regional prosecutor\u2019s office) on following grounds: applicant\u2019s confession had been retracted and no evidence corroborating account of events reflected in that confession had been collected;<\/p>\n

(x) 08\/11\/16 \u2013 decision to discontinue criminal proceedings against applicant (Dnipropetrovskyy District Court);<\/p>\n

(xi) 28\/12\/16 \u2013 decision of 08\/11\/16 upheld (Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal).<\/td>\n

(i) Crucial elements remain unclear: no conclusive evidence indicating presence\/ timing\/cause of injuries (compare A.V.<\/em> v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a065032\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a049-50, 29\u00a0January\u00a02015; Yevgeniy Petrenko<\/em> v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a055749\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a080-81, 29\u00a0January\u00a02015; and Lunev v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04725\/13, \u00a7\u00a0102, 22\u00a0October\u00a02015);<\/p>\n

(ii) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence and resolve inconsistencies in witness testimonies; in particular, no forensic assessment of applicant\u2019s state of health\/possible connection between his subsequent kidney disease and alleged ill-treatment; no face-to-face confrontations between applicant and witnesses contesting his allegations (compare Yevgeniy Petrenko<\/em> v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a055749\/08, \u00a7\u00a068, 29\u00a0January\u00a02015 and Ushakov and Ushakova v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010705\/12, \u00a7\u00a093, 18\u00a0June 2015);<\/p>\n

(iii) Second decision to close criminal proceedings almost identical to first, quashed by court with reference to shortcomings in inquiry (compare Dzhulay v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a024439\/06, \u00a7\u00a055 and 59, 3\u00a0April\u00a02014).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

B. Other complaints <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01: unrecorded detention<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Period of deprivation of liberty complained about\/arresting authority<\/em><\/p>\n

11\/04\/13, about 6\u00a0a.m., to 11\/04\/13, 7.20\u00a0p.m., Dnipropetrovskyy district police station.<\/p>\n

2. Grounds and documents regularising alleged deprivation of liberty during above period:<\/em><\/p>\n

No documents.<\/p>\n

3. Domestic complaints by applicant<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Same as in respect of ill-treatment (see section A above).<\/p>\n

4. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n

Decision to discontinue criminal proceedings concerning applicant\u2019s ill-treatment allegations of 21\/06\/13: according to police officers V.I., V.P. and O.P., on 10\/04\/13 they were instructed to bring applicant in for questioning as suspect in case concerning V. Ch.\u2019s violent death and did so at about 6.30\u00a0a.m. on 11\/04\/13.<\/p>\n

Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3: detention on remand<\/strong><\/p>\n

Period of deprivation of liberty complained about\/arresting authority<\/em><\/p>\n

12\/04\/13 (decision to remand in custody) – 04\/09\/13 (decision to replace detention by electronic surveillance and obligation not to leave habitual residence at night time) – Dnipropetrovskyy District Court.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

C. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage: <\/em>EUR\u00a07,000.<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses: <\/em>EUR\u00a07,000 in legal fees (domestic criminal proceedings against applicant; domestic proceedings concerning alleged ill-treatment; and Convention proceedings).<\/p>\n

Supporting documents: <\/em>contracts for legal representation by Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Doroshenko; timesheets: 468\u00a0hours at 300 hryvnias (UAH) per hour.<\/p>\n

Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage<\/em>: claim exorbitant and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses<\/em>: unsubstantiated \u2011 it is not possible to discern what percentage of work by Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Doroshenko concerned subject matter of present case; legal fees incurred in connection with representation in domestic criminal proceedings against applicant are irrelevant.<\/td>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a07,000, as claimed by applicant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a03,500<\/p>\n

plus any tax chargeable to applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
3. Application no.\u00a045940\/13<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Mr Dmitriy Valeryevich Baloyan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukrainian national born in 1978 and residing in Oleshivka<\/p>\n

Represented by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Levytskyy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv<\/p>\n

Lodged on 11\u00a0July\u00a02013<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
On 12 February 2012, during the applicant\u2019s questioning in the Kozelets district police station, police officer I.B. coerced him into confessing to a murder. He insisted that the applicant had intentionally murdered S.K. out of jealousy rather than hitting him with an axe to protect the applicant\u2019s girlfriend from being sexually harassed by S.K. Police officer I.B. repeatedly punched the handcuffed applicant on various parts of his body and banged him against the walls and furniture.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n

17\/02\/12 \u2013 certificate (Chernigiv SIZO, medical unit): \u201cold abrasion on right eyebrow (2-3\u00a0cm) and purple bruise in right elbow area (5\u00a0cm)\u201d.<\/p>\n

2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n

25\/06\/12 \u2013 with Kozelets District Court (during applicant\u2019s trial).<\/p>\n

3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 04\/07\/12 \u2013 decision not to institute criminal proceedings (Kozelets district prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(ii) 23\/01\/14 and 13\/02\/14 \u2013 Kozelets District Court and Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal respectively declined to hear applicant\u2019s appeals;<\/p>\n

(iii) 11\/11\/14 \u2013 in response to applicant\u2019s further complaints, criminal proceedings instituted (Chernigiv regional prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(iv) 19\/12\/14 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed (Chernigiv regional prosecutor\u2019s office): previous comprehensive inquiry had already established that there had been no ill-treatment case to answer;<\/p>\n

(v) 16\/02\/15 and 13\/03\/15 \u2013 applicant\u2019s appeals rejected as unfounded (Novozavodskiy District Court in Chernigiv and Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n

Statements taken from police officer I.B. and investigator M.M.<\/p>\n

5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n

No arguable ill-treatment case; origin of documented injuries not explored.<\/p>\n

6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 11\/02\/12, about\u00a011\u00a0p.m. \u2013 applicant taken for questioning by police in connection with S.K.\u2019s death from cerebral injury;<\/p>\n

(ii) 12\/02\/12 \u2013 applicant submitted that he had hit S.K. with an axe in retaliation for sexual advances on his girlfriend;<\/p>\n

(iii) same date \u2013 applicant arrested and placed in custody;<\/p>\n

(iv) 25\/06\/12 \u2013 applicant retracted confession; he alleged that police officer\u00a0I.B. had forced him to state that he had hit S.K. in retaliation; in fact, he had been defending his girlfriend from aggressive sexual advances by S.K.;<\/p>\n

(v) 16\/08\/12 \u2013 applicant convicted of having murdered S.K. (Kozelets District Court);<\/p>\n

(vi) 10\/01\/13 and 05\/02\/15 \u2013 applicant\u2019s appeals rejected (Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal and Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters).<\/td>\n

(i) Available material does not allow to establish conclusively that applicant sustained injuries when he was under control of police (for relevant example, see Kozinets v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a075520\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a056\u201157, 6\u00a0December\u00a02007, and Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038683\/06, \u00a7\u00a054, 15\u00a0July\u00a02010);<\/p>\n

(ii) Delay in instituting criminal proceedings leading to loss of evidence (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201169, 24 June 2010, and Savitskyy v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038773\/05, \u00a7 105, 26\u00a0July 2012);<\/p>\n

(iii) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence, in particular, no forensic assessment of applicant\u2019s injuries with a view to establishing their possible timing and manner of infliction; no questioning of applicant or medical staff who recorded injuries; no face-to-face confrontations between applicant and police officer implicated in ill-treatment (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014 and Kapustyak v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a026230\/11, \u00a7\u00a080, 3\u00a0March 2016).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

B. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> EUR\u00a011,000.<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/em> EUR\u00a01,600 in legal fees (Convention proceedings only) to be transferred directly to Mr O.V.\u00a0Levytskyy, applicant\u2019s lawyer.<\/p>\n

Supporting documents: <\/em>legal representation contract dated 24\/05\/19; timesheet: sixteen hours of lawyer\u2019s work at EUR\u00a0100 per hour, fees have not been payed yet.<\/p>\n

Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage: <\/em>claim exorbitant.<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/em> fees not actually incurred; applicant has not advanced any payment.<\/td>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a07,500<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a01,600<\/p>\n

plus any tax chargeable to applicant<\/p>\n

(compare Belousov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0115\u201116,\u00a07\u00a0November 2013).<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

4. Application no.\u00a046982\/13<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Mr Viktor Oleksiyovych Udaltsov<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukrainian national born in 1955 and residing in Khmelnytskyy<\/p>\n

Represented by Ms\u00a0O.I.\u00a0Turkas, a lawyer practising in Lviv<\/p>\n

Lodged on 11\u00a0July\u00a02013<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
At about 9 p.m. on 15 March 2011, while the applicant, in the company of two acquaintances, was dining out at the T. bar, an argument broke out between some other customers; at that moment L.S., one of the applicant\u2019s two companions, noticed that some UAH 800 was missing from her purse and called the police. The police arrived at about 9.30 p.m., when the customers who had been arguing and the third member of the applicant\u2019s party had already left the bar. The officers then shoved L.S. and the applicant into their car and took them into the Pivdenno-Zakhidnyy district police station in Khmelnytskyy. L.S. was taken to a separate room for questioning and the applicant heard her scream. When he asked what was going on, several police officers threw him to the floor, kicked and punched him all over, sprayed tear gas in his eyes and crushed his left hand in the door, fracturing his fingers. Subsequently the applicant and L.S. were given an opportunity to telephone their relatives. At about midnight, the applicant and L.S. were released by the police into the care of their relatives (the applicant\u2019s daughter and L.S.\u2019s husband).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 16\/03\/11 at 1.15\u00a0a.m. \u2013 certificate (Khmelnytskyy city hospital, trauma centre): fractures of two fingers of left hand; complaints concerning eye pain and deterioration of vision;<\/p>\n

(ii) 18\/03\/11 to 21\/03\/11 \u2013 excerpts from medical record (Khmelnytskyy city hospital): chemical eye burns; chest contusion; cerebral concussion;<\/p>\n

(iii) 21\/03\/11 \u2013 report no.\u00a0379 (Khmelnytskyy regional forensic medical bureau): fractures of two fingers of left hand; bruising (forehead, right eye, right hand, right shin); abrasion (right knee); redness of both eyes; injuries inflicted within twenty-four hours of examination on 16\/03\/11;<\/p>\n

(iv) 21\/03\/11 to 04\/04\/11 \u2013 inpatient treatment certificate (Grechany local hospital): cerebral concussion; chemical eye burns.<\/p>\n

2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n

16\/03\/11 \u2013 with Khmelnytskyy city prosecutor\u2019s office.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 18\/03\/11 \u2013 report (internal investigation by police): no ill\u2011treatment took place;<\/p>\n

(ii) 25\/03\/11 \u2013 decision not to institute criminal proceedings (investigator with Khmelnytskyy city prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(iii) 01\/04\/11 \u2013 decision quashed (more senior prosecutor): superficial inquiry;<\/p>\n

(iv) 16\/05\/11 \u2013 further decision not to institute criminal proceedings; according to Government, copy of this decision was sent to applicant by post on same day;<\/p>\n

(v) 12\/03\/13 \u2013 applicant enquired Khmelnytskyy city prosecutor about progress in investigating his complaint and noted that he had not received any news since 18\u00a0March\u00a02011;<\/p>\n

(vi) 20\/03\/13 \u2013 applicant notified of decision of 16\/05\/11 and informed that respective decision was not amenable to appeal following entry into force of new Code of Criminal Procedure (2012).<\/p>\n

4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) statements taken from applicant, his daughter, L.S., her husband, police officers, owner of T. bar, and forensic expert;<\/p>\n

(ii) forensic expert assessment of applicant\u2019s injuries.<\/p>\n

5. Key findings<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Accounts of events provided by applicant, his daughter, L.S., and her husband lack coherence; injuries could have been sustained after applicant had left police station.<\/p>\n

6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 16\/03\/11 \u2013 visitor\u2019s log entry (Pivdenno-Zakhidnyy district police station in Khmelnytskyy): at 12.10 a.m. applicant and L.S. left police station escorted by applicant\u2019s daughter and L.S.\u2019s husband;<\/p>\n

(ii) 16\/03\/11 \u2013 reports by duty officers V.S. and N.R. to their superiors stating as follows: at about 9.20\u00a0p.m. on 15\/03\/11, L.S. had called police to T. bar alleging theft of money; upon arrival of officers, applicant and L.S., who were heavily intoxicated, had been taken to police station, but had been unable to communicate coherently their reasons for calling police. No force had been used on them and both of them had been released without charge upon arrival of their relatives.<\/td>\n

(i) Available material does not allow to establish conclusively that applicant sustained injuries when he was under control of police (for relevant examples, see Kozinets v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a075520\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a056\u201157, 6\u00a0December\u00a02007; Kulyk v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a030760\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a082-83, 23\u00a0June\u00a02016 and Barysheva v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no. 9505\/12, \u00a7\u00a055, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017);<\/p>\n

(ii) No full-scale investigation of arguable ill-treatment complaints (for relevant examples, see, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, Davydov and Others v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a017674\/02 and 39081\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0310-12, 1\u00a0July\u00a02010; Lyapin v. Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0129 and 132-36, 24\u00a0July\u00a02014; and Chernega and Others v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a074768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019);<\/p>\n

(iii) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence, in particular, no face-to-face confrontations or other steps to reconcile discrepancies between accounts of various participants in events (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine,<\/em> no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014, and Drozd v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a012174\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069-70, 30\u00a0July\u00a02009);<\/p>\n

(iv) Having focused on exculpating police officers, investigation did not attempt to determine exact timing and origin of applicant\u2019s documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a074820\/10 and 4\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a080, 3\u00a0December 2015, and Barysheva v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a060, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017);<\/p>\n

(v) Delay in apprising applicant of procedural developments (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014 and Barysheva v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a061, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

B. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage: <\/em>EUR\u00a010,000.<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/em> EUR\u00a0392 in legal fees (Convention proceedings).<\/p>\n

Supporting documents: <\/em>contract for legal representation dated 01\/05\/13; timesheet: fifteen hours (8\u00a0hours at UAH\u00a0459 per hour in 2013; 2 hours at UAH 580 per hour in 2016; and 5 hours at UAH\u00a01,280 per hour in 2017) \u2013 equivalent to EUR\u00a0392, according to applicant.<\/p>\n

Government<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Non-pecuniary damage: <\/em>claim exorbitant and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/em> at Court\u2019s discretion.<\/td>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a07,500<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Costs and expenses:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a0392<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

plus any tax chargeable to applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
5. Application no.\u00a050463\/13<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Mr Oleg Sergeyevich Gidulyan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukrainian national born in 1969 and residing in Pershotravensk<\/p>\n

Represented by Mr\u00a0V.V.\u00a0Buts, a lawyer practising in Pershotravensk<\/p>\n

Lodged on 29\u00a0July\u00a02013<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning alleged police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
At about 7\u00a0p.m. on 12 March 2006, police officers V.S. and D.R. violently assaulted V.Y., an acquaintance of the applicant\u2019s, whom they had seen urinating in the yard of a block of flats. When the applicant verbally protested against their conduct, they shoved him in their car and took him to Pershotravensk police station. Once inside, the two officers repeatedly kicked, punched and hit the applicant with truncheons in retaliation for his attempts to protect his acquaintance from their violence.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 15-17\/03\/06 \u2013 outpatient record (unspecified polyclinic): haematoma to left eye, vertigo, vomiting, headaches, chest pain, rib fractures, contusion of eyelids, contusion of left cheekbone, post-traumatic pneumonia;<\/p>\n

(ii) 12\/04\/06 \u2013 excerpt from inpatient medical record (Pavlograd tuberculosis dispensary): infiltrating tuberculosis since 2005; several consecutive sessions of inpatient treatment, including ongoing session which had begun on 21\/03\/06; upon arrival on that date, haematoma around left eye, healing fractures of 6th<\/sup> and 7th<\/sup> rib (right side);<\/p>\n

(iii) 19\/04\/07 \u2013 report no. 221 (Pavlograd forensic medical expert bureau): injuries of intermediate seriousness (bruising to eyelids, cheekbone contusion, chest contusion, fractures of three ribs complicated by post-traumatic pneumonia) possibly sustained on 12\/03\/06 by blunt force trauma.<\/p>\n

2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n

14\/03\/06 \u2013 with Pershotravensk prosecutor\u2019s office.<\/p>\n

3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 22\/05\/06 \u2013 decision not to institute criminal proceedings (Pershotravensk prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(ii)\u00a020\/10\/11 \u2013 applicant informed of decision;<\/p>\n

(iii) 10\/11\/11 \u2013 applicant\u2019s appeal allowed (Pershotravensk court);<\/p>\n

(iv) 10\/06\/12 \u2013 decision not to institute criminal proceedings against police officers and to inquire into infliction of injuries by unknown persons (Pershotravensk prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n

(v) 24\/07\/12 \u2013 criminal proceedings instituted and entrusted to Pershotravensk police;<\/p>\n

(vi) 31\/10\/12 – proceedings suspended (Pershotravensk police): means for identifying perpetrators exhausted;<\/p>\n

(vii) 20\/09\/13 \u2013 proceedings reopened; applicant added as victim;<\/p>\n

(viii) 28\/11\/16 \u2013 proceedings closed as time-barred.<\/p>\n

4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) forensic assessment of applicant\u2019s injuries;<\/p>\n

(ii) statements taken from officers V.S. and D.R. and his acquaintance V.Y. in 2006 and 2012.<\/p>\n

5. Key findings<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Injuries were inflicted on 11\/03\/06 by unidentified perpetrators.<\/p>\n

6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) 12\/03\/06, about 7.20\u00a0p.m. \u2013 applicant arrested for disorderly conduct and insubordination to police (officers V.S. and D.R., Pershotravensk police);<\/p>\n

(ii) 13\/03\/06 \u2013 applicant convicted as charged and sentenced to one day\u2019s detention (Pershotravensk court);<\/p>\n

(iii) 06\/06\/12 \u2013 V.Y. (applicant\u2019s acquaintance and witness to arrest) submitted to Pershotravensk prosecutor\u2019s office that on 12\/03\/06 he and applicant had drunk three or four bottles of vodka together; applicant had assaulted police officers V.S. and D.R. after they had reprimanded V.Y. for urinating in public and had fallen down attempting to resist their reasonable efforts to contain him and effect his arrest for disorderly conduct; applicant\u2019s facial haematomas pre-dated arrival of police, according to applicant\u2019s account to V.Y., he had sustained them on 11\/03\/06 during fight with unspecified drinking companions;<\/p>\n

(iv) 26\/10\/12 \u2013 Officers V.S. and D.R. gave similar accounts and attested to having seen haematomas on applicant\u2019s face upon their arrival.<\/td>\n

(i) Available material does not allow to establish conclusively that applicant sustained injuries when he was under control of police (for relevant examples, see Kozinets v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a075520\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a056\u201157, 6\u00a0December\u00a02007; Kulyk v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a030760\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a082\u201183, 23 June 2016 and Barysheva v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a09505\/12,\u00a0\u00a7\u00a055,\u00a014\u00a0March\u00a02017);<\/p>\n

(ii) Significant delay in instituting criminal proceedings (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201169, 24\u00a0June\u00a02010 and Savitskyy v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038773\/05, \u00a7\u00a0105, 26\u00a0July\u00a02012);<\/p>\n

(iii) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence, notably, no confrontations or other steps to reconcile discrepancies between accounts by applicant and V.Y. (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine,<\/em> no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014, and Drozd v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a012174\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069\u201170, 30\u00a0July\u00a02009);<\/p>\n

(iv) Hasty conclusion that all reported injuries pre-dated arrival at police station and no attempt to assess probability of applicant\u2019s allegation that he had been injured after arrest, on police premises (for a relevant example, see Gordiyenko v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a027620\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a095\u201196, 16\u00a0October 2014);<\/p>\n

(v) significant delay in apprising applicant of major procedural developments (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014 and Barysheva v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a061, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

B. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Just satisfaction award to be determined by Court according to its practice.<\/p>\n

Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Applicant failed to formulate specific claim: no call to comment.<\/td>\n

Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n

EUR\u00a07,500<\/p>\n

plus any tax chargeable to applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Ms\u00a0Ashchenko seized to represent the applicant on 23\u00a0August\u00a02018<\/p>\n