\nCASE OF LUTAYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 1781\/14 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 Lutayenko 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, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications (nos.\u00a01781\/14, 23274\/14, 74276\/14, 78541\/14 and 4989\/15) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 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 the alleged police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective domestic investigation into the allegations in that regard (all applications); compulsion to undergo sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests and the lack of effective redress for the relevant complaint (application no.\u00a023274\/14); allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty, the lack of effective redress for the relevant complaint, and the length of criminal proceedings (application no. 4989\/15) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications nos.\u00a023274\/14 and 4989\/15;<\/p>\n the decision to grant legal aid to some of the applicants (see appended tables for details);<\/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 1. The applicants alleged, in particular, under Article\u00a03 of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into their respective complaints had been ineffective. In addition, some applicants also raised other complaints under Articles\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01, 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01, 8 and 13 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. ALLEGED POLICE ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION<\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained that they had been ill-treated by the police and that their respective complaints had not been properly investigated. The applicants invoked various Convention provisions in respect of the above complaints.<\/p>\n 6. 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, which 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 7. 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 8. 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 9. 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. Moldova, no.\u00a029772\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a039 and 45, 21\u00a0September\u00a02010; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no.\u00a06087\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0109 and 119, 25\u00a0June 2013; and Barysheva v. Ukraine, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a055, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017).<\/p>\n 10. 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 11. 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 12. The Court therefore concludes that the present complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER COMPLAINTS UNDER WELL-established case-law<\/p>\n A. Mrs\u00a0G.\u00a0Lysak (application no.\u00a023274\/14)<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Mrs\u00a0G.\u00a0Lysak additionally complained that the police officers had compelled her to undergo sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests without any legal basis. She referred to Article\u00a08 of the Convention in this respect, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private … life, … .<\/p>\n 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law … .\u201d<\/p>\n 14. The Government argued that the present complaint was manifestly ill\u2011founded, as the applicant herself had volunteered to undergo the tests and there had been no interference with her rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 15. Having examined the material before it, and, in particular, the records of the substance abuse and psychiatric health centres (see table\u00a02 section\u00a0A(6\u2011iii, iv) and section B for details), the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant volunteered to undergo the aforementioned tests, contrary to what has been suggested by the Government. It further concludes that the fact that the police officers took the applicant to the medical facilities with a view to testing her sobriety and psychiatric fitness constituted an interference with her right to respect for private life protected by Article\u00a08 of the Convention. It is not evident either from the file, or from the Government\u2019s observations what was the legal basis for that interference.<\/p>\n 16. In the light of its findings in a number of other cases (see, in particular, mutatis mutandis, Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209\/94, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a033-36 and 41\u201144, ECHR 2003\u2011IX; Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no.\u00a039229\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a082-86, 7\u00a0July\u00a02011; Konovalova v. Russia, no. 37873\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048-50, 9\u00a0October\u00a02014; and Y.Y. v. Russia, no.\u00a040378\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a055-60, 23\u00a0February 2016) the Court concludes that the present complaint is admissible and that it discloses a violation of Article\u00a08 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B. Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Patsev (application no.\u00a04989\/15)<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Patsev submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case\u2011law of the Court (see appended table 5, section B for details).<\/p>\n 18. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints are admissible and disclose the following violations:<\/p>\n (a) a violation of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning unrecorded detention on 6 and 7\u00a0October\u00a02009, in the light of the Court\u2019s findings in Smolik v. Ukraine (no.\u00a011778\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a045-48, judgment of 19 January 2012); Grinenko v.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a074-78, judgment of 15\u00a0November\u00a02012); and Belousov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a085); and<\/p>\n (b) a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him, in the light of the Court\u2019s findings in P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a025444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011II; Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR\u00a02000\u2011VII; and Merit v.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a066561\/01, judgment of 30\u00a0March\u00a02004).<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 19. Mrs\u00a0G.\u00a0Lysak (application no.\u00a023274\/14) and Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Patsev (application no.\u00a04989\/15) additionally complained that they had been unable to obtain redress for their complaints under Articles 8 and 5 \u00a7\u00a01 respectively. They invoked Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 20. The Court considers that it has already addressed the main legal questions raised in the present applications, and that there is no need to make a separate assessment of the admissibility and merits of the complaints mentioned in paragraph\u00a019 above (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 21. 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 22. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, 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 23. 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, the complaint concerning compulsion to undergo sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests raised in application no.\u00a023274\/14, and the complaint concerning unrecorded detention and length of the proceedings raised in application no.\u00a04989\/15 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 8 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning compulsion to undergo sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests raised in application no.\u00a023274\/14;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning unrecorded detention raised in application no.\u00a04989\/15;<\/p>\n 6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings raised in application no.\u00a04989\/15;<\/p>\n 7. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of other complaints raised under Article\u00a013 of the Convention in applications nos.\u00a023274\/14 and 4989\/15;<\/p>\n 8. 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 9. 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 ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n by <\/strong>Mr\u00a0Yuriy Oleksiyovych Lutayenko<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1977 and residing in Pyryatyn<\/p>\n Represented by Ms\u00a0L.G.\u00a0Ibadova, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv<\/p>\n Lodged on 2\u00a0December\u00a02013<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n (i) 19\/01\/09 \u2013 medical examination certificate (Poltava temporary detention facility (\u201cSIZO\u201d)): no injuries or complaints;<\/p>\n (ii) 21\/10\/09 \u2013 medical record (Poltava SIZO ophtalmologist): high myopia; retinal angiopathy;<\/p>\n (iii) 28\/03\/14 – report no.\u00a050 (Poltava regional forensic medical expert bureau): based on available documents not possible to conclude whether applicant\u2019s high myopia could be caused by ill-treatment: (a)\u00a0applicant had already suffered from myopia before arrest; (b)\u00a0no medical records indicating that he had sustained any injuries on dates of alleged ill\u2011treatment; and (c)\u00a0no detailed records tracing progress of myopic disease;<\/p>\n (iv) 10\/06\/15 – letter from investigator to Poltava regional forensic medical expert board: not possible to identify any additional records concerning applicant\u2019s health;<\/p>\n (v) 03\/07\/15 \u2013 report no.\u00a096 (Poltava regional medical forensic expert bureau): previous conclusions reiterated.<\/p>\n 2. Ill-treatment complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n 29\/10\/09, with Leninskyy District Court in Poltava, during applicant\u2019s trial.<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 29\/10\/09 \u2013 Leninskyy District Court in Poltava requested prosecutor\u2019s office to investigate alleged ill-treatment;<\/p>\n (ii) 26\/11\/09, 26\/03\/12, 23\/08\/12 and 08\/10\/12 \u2013 decisions not to institute criminal proceedings: no appearance of police ill-treatment; decisions subsequently quashed on appeal (more senior prosecutors\/courts): shortcomings in inquiry;<\/p>\n (iii) 10\/02\/14 \u2013 criminal proceedings instituted (Poltava regional prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n (iv) 07\/03\/14 and 14\/05\/15 – medical expert assessments ordered to investigate probability that applicant\u2019s high myopia could have been caused by ill-treatment;<\/p>\n (v) 31\/03\/14, 31\/09\/14 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed: no appearance of police ill-treatment; decisions subsequently quashed on appeal (courts): shortcomings in investigation;<\/p>\n (vi) 23\/07\/15 – criminal proceedings closed.<\/p>\n 4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Statements taken from applicant, his co-defendant O.K. and several police officers;<\/p>\n (ii) two assessments by forensic medical experts.<\/p>\n 5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n No arguable police ill-treatment case; not possible to establish causal link between alleged ill-treatment and development of high myopia.<\/p>\n 6. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 30\/12\/08 \u2013 applicant and O.K. arrested while attempting to sell weapon and subsequently remanded in custody by court decision pending investigation of various charges against them;<\/p>\n (ii) 04\/03\/16 \u2013 applicant and O.K. convicted of having committed a series of offences and released from detention, having been sentenced to time served (Poltavskyy District Court)<\/td>\n (ii) Significant delays in arranging forensic medical examinations and 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\u00a0June 2010, and Savitskyy v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038773\/05, \u00a7\u00a0105, 26\u00a0July 2012);<\/p>\n (iii) Overall length of investigation and repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of shortcomings recognised by domestic authorities (for relevant examples, see Belousov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a056, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013, and Adnaralov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010493\/12, \u00a7\u00a050, 27\u00a0November\u00a02014).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Non-pecuniary damage :<\/em> 30,000 euros (EUR).<\/p>\n Costs and expenses: <\/em>EUR\u00a0720 in legal fees (preparation of application) and EUR\u00a0850 (representation before Court after communication).<\/p>\n Supporting documents:<\/em>\u00a0contract for legal representation dated 10\/10\/13 and timesheet (twelve hours at EUR\u00a060 per hour for preparing application to Court).<\/p>\n Other relevant information<\/em>: applicant granted EUR\u00a0850 in legal aid.<\/p>\n Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em>: Claim exorbitant and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n Costs and expenses<\/em>: claim of EUR\u00a0850 for legal representation after communication not supported by any documents.<\/td>\n EUR\u00a07,500<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable to applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/p>\n by<\/strong> Ms\u00a0Galyna Mykolayivna Lysak<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1963 and residing in Nova Ukrayinka<\/p>\n Represented by Mr\u00a0M.R.\u00a0Glotov, a lawyer practising in Rivne<\/p>\n Lodged on 13\u00a0March\u00a02014<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n (i) 08\/02\/13 \u2013 record no.\u00a0142 (Rivne ambulance station): at 4.45\u00a0p.m. applicant hospitalised to Rivne municipal hospital: hypertensive crisis, situational neurosis; medication administered by intramuscular injection;<\/p>\n (ii) 09\/04\/13 \u2013 report no.\u00a0207 (Rivne regional forensic medical expert bureau, \u201cRRFMEB\u201d): minor injuries possibly sustained on 08\/02\/13: hematomas, 7×3\u00a0cm (buttock); and 0.6×0.4cm\u00a0(finger) resulting from impact of blunt object(s) with limited contact surface; possibly as indicated by applicant (i.e., shoving and punching);<\/p>\n (iii) 30\/04\/13 \u2013 supplementary report no.\u00a0207\/D-501 (RRFMEB): during investigative experiment conducted on 17\/04\/13, applicant demonstrated how M.M. had allegedly inflicted injuries; her demonstration was plausible concerning circumstances of infliction of buttock hematoma, but not finger hematoma;<\/p>\n (iv) 02\/07\/13 \u2013 letter and internal inquiry report (Rivne municipal hospital, to Rivne prosecutor\u2019s office): no injuries were detected or ill-treatment complaints were received from applicant when she was hospitalised on 08\/03\/13; intramuscular injection on that date could have possibly caused buttock hematoma;<\/p>\n (v) 29\/07\/13 \u2013 report no.\u00a0207\/D-501\/D-846 (RRFMEB): regard being had to additional medical documents, it cannot be excluded that buttock hematoma had been consequence of intramuscular injection (according to applicant, she found out that present assessment had been carried out only once investigation of her ill-treatment complaint was closed).<\/p>\n 2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n 10\/02\/13, with Rivne district prosecutor<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 11\/02\/13 – criminal proceedings instituted into suspected abuse of authority by police officers (Rivne district prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n (ii) 13\/05\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed on following grounds: \u201c[applicant\u2019s] testimony concerning infliction of … injuries by police officers has not been confirmed by any eyewitnesses; accordingly the injuries at issue could be sustained in a trivial accident or inflicted by unidentified third parties\u201d;<\/em><\/p>\n (iii) 10\/06\/13 \u2013 decision to close proceedings quashed on appeal (Rivne district court): superficial inquiry; origin of injuries not established;<\/p>\n (iv) 29\/07\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed: same grounds and added possibility that injuries could result from injection of medicaments;<\/p>\n (v) 30\/08\/13 \u2013 decision notified to applicant;<\/p>\n (vi) 19\/09\/13 and 30\/09\/13 \u2013 applicant\u2019s appeals rejected (Rivne District Court and Rivne Regional Court of Appeal): following thorough investigation, no appearance of police ill-treatment or abuse of authority.<\/p>\n 4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Statements taken from applicant, her husband and neighbours, police officers, and several medical professionals;<\/p>\n (ii) Forensic assessments;<\/p>\n (iii) Investigative experiment: applicant demonstrated how officer M.M. had allegedly shoved and punched her.<\/p>\n 5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n Injuries could have been sustained in trivial incident, inflicted by unidentified third parties or resulted from injection of medicaments.<\/p>\n 6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 08\/02\/13, 9.30\u00a0a.m. \u2013 telephone call log (Rivne police): complaint from applicant that S.Y., neighbour, threatened to resort to physical violence;<\/p>\n (ii) 08\/02\/13, 10.25\u00a0a.m. \u2013 telephone call log (Rivne police): complaint from S.Y. that applicant threatened to resort to physical violence;<\/p>\n (iii) 08\/02\/13, 2.30\u00a0p.m. \u2013 admission journal entry (Rivne substance abuse centre): applicant brought in by police for sobriety check; grounds: administrative offence\/suspicion of having committed crime; no physical injuries or traces of alcohol consumption detected; applicant is in agitated emotional state, uttering threats against police officers;<\/p>\n (iv) 08\/02\/13, unspecified time \u2013 medical record (Rivne psychiatric health centre): applicant brought in by police for psychiatric fitness check-up; grounds: conflict with neighbour, who alleged that she had record of psychiatric disturbances; results of examination: agitated emotional state (reaction to stress); no previous history or actual signs of psychiatric disorders.<\/td>\n (ii) Delays in taking medical and other evidence; impairments in apprising applicant of procedural developments and ensuring her access to investigative procedure (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014; Kirpichenko v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no. 38833\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a086, 88, 2\u00a0April\u00a02015; and Barysheva v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a061, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017);<\/p>\n (iii) No appearance of sufficient effort to collect objective evidence, in particular, no confrontations or other measures aimed at reconciling conflicting medical evidence and incident accounts or clarifying actual origin of injuries (for relevant examples, see Drozd v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a012174\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069-70, 30\u00a0July\u00a02009; and Kapustyak v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a026230\/11, \u00a7\u00a080, 3\u00a0March\u00a02016);<\/p>\n (iv) Hasty conclusion that reported injuries could not be inflicted by police officers, which was based essentially on their own testimonies taken at face value (for relevant examples, see Gordiyenko v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a027620\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a095\u201196, 16\u00a0October 2014; and Kleutin v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a05911\/05, \u00a7\u00a068, 23\u00a0June\u00a02016).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1. Date\/nature of alleged interference:<\/em><\/p>\n 08\/02\/13, allegedly arbitrary compulsion by police officers to undergo sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests (see details in Section A above).<\/p>\n 2. Relevant domestic complaints:<\/em><\/p>\n Complaint to Rivne prosecutor\u2019s office (see details in Section A (2, 3) above).<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n Decision of 29\/07\/13 to close criminal proceedings in respect of alleged abuse of authority by police officers: there was no compulsion; according to police officers, sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests were organised at applicant\u2019s own initiative and in response to her direct request.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Government: <\/em><\/strong>Exorbitant claim.<\/td>\n <\/p>\n by<\/strong> Mr\u00a0Roman Borysovych Fedoryshyn<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1977 and residing in Severynivka<\/p>\n Represented by Mr\u00a0P.A.\u00a0Strepetov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv<\/p>\n Lodged on 21\u00a0November\u00a02014<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 29\/10\/10 \u2013 report no.\u00a0436 (Kyiv regional forensic medical expert bureau): hematomas on both buttocks (16×10\u00a0cm and 19×12\u00a0cm) and abrasions (left buttock, both knees) sustained five to seven days before examination, which took place on 29\/09\/10; no injuries in or around anal orifice.<\/p>\n 2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n 28\/09\/10, with Vasylkiv inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office.<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 07\/10\/10, 05\/11\/10, 07\/12\/11, 16\/12\/11, 14\/05\/12 – decisions not to institute criminal proceedings (Vasylkiv inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office): no appearance of ill-treatment;<\/p>\n (ii) 16\/09\/13, 24\/12\/13 and 22\/05\/14 \u2013 ill-treatment complaints raised by applicant at trial rejected (Vasylkiv Court, Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, and Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters, respectively): based on prosecutor\u2019s office\u2019s inquiry, there was no appearance of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n 4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Statements taken from several police officers, who denied allegations of ill-treatment;<\/p>\n (ii) Forensic assessment of injuries.<\/p>\n 5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n According to expert assessment, timing of documented injuries pre-dated arrest; there was therefore no police ill-treatment case to answer.<\/p>\n 6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 25\/09\/10 \u2013 reports on applicant\u2019s questionings as witness in G.Ch.\u2019s murder case (Vasylkiv police);<\/p>\n (ii) 26\/09\/10 \u2013 \u201cstatement of surrender\u201d (addressed to Vasylkiv police): applicant confessed that he had killed G.Ch.;<\/p>\n (iii) 27\/09\/10, 3.15\u00a0p.m. \u2013 applicant formally arrested on suspicion of having killed G.Ch.\u00a0(Vasylkiv police); he pleaded guilty during questioning;<\/p>\n (iv) 30\/09\/10 \u2013 applicant retracted confessional statements as made under duress;<\/p>\n (v) 16\/09\/13 \u2013 applicant convicted of having killed G.Ch. and sentenced to imprisonment (Vasylkiv Court);<\/p>\n (vi) 24\/12\/13 and 22\/05\/14 \u2013 applicant\u2019s appeals rejected (Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal and Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters, respectively).<\/td>\n (ii) Inquiry limited in scope and without genuine effort to collect objective evidence and establish timing and origin of injuries (applicant himself not questioned; no effort to elucidate circumstances in which he submitted \u201cstatement of surrender\u201d; allegations of unrecorded detention dismissed based on submissions of police officers taken at face value (for relevant examples, see Grinenko v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a062, 15\u00a0November 2012; and Kleutin v Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a05911\/05, \u00a7\u00a068, 23\u00a0June\u00a02016).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em>: EUR\u00a020,000<\/p>\n Costs and expenses<\/em>: EUR\u00a02,220 in legal fees (domestic and Convention proceedings)<\/p>\n Supporting documents<\/em>: legal representation contract dated 14\/11\/10; payment receipts<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Claims exorbitant; information concerning method of lawyer\u2019s fees calculation insufficiently detailed<\/td>\n EUR\u00a07,500<\/p>\n Costs and expenses:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a02,220<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable to applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n
\nGanna Yudkivska,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n 1. Application no.\u00a01781\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning alleged police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Arrested on 30\u00a0December\u00a02008, the applicant was detained and repeatedly ill-treated until 9\u00a0January\u00a02009 by officers of the Poltava police forcing him to confess to having participated in a series of various crimes together with his friend O.K. In particular, they punched, kicked and verbally assaulted the applicant, deprived him of food and sleep. On 5\u00a0January\u00a02009 police officer V.T. accompanied by two others repeatedly administered electric shocks to the applicant through electrodes attached to his ears. Several days after these events the applicant noticed that his pre-existing myopia started deteriorating.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) For over three years after applicant lodged complaint there was no full\u2011scale investigation, only repeated rounds of pre\u2011investigation inquiry (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.\u00a0Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0129 and 132-36, 24\u00a0July\u00a02014; and Chernega and Others v Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a074768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019);<\/p>\n \n B<\/strong>. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\n Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n 2. Application no.\u00a023274\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n On 8 February 2013 three police officers of the Rivne municipal police were sent to the applicant\u2019s home in response to her complaint that S.Y., her neighbour, had threatened her with physical violence during an argument. Having interviewed the applicant and S.Y., the officers demanded her to follow them with a view to undergoing sobriety and psychiatric fitness check-ups. The applicant complied with that demand and the officers escorted her to the substance abuse and psychiatric fitness centres. Having verified that the applicant was sober and having received a medical opinion that she did not suffer from any mental disorders, the officers returned to their base station and told the applicant that she could go back home. However, considering that she had been treated unfairly and had been arbitrarily compelled to undergo the tests, the applicant insisted that the officers bring her home in their car. In response, officer M.M. shoved and punched the applicant, attempting to ensure that she was out of the car. As the applicant kept protesting and resisting, the officers decided to leave her alone in the car. After some time, the applicant, feeling cold and unwell, left the car and entered the police station seeking help. The officer on duty at the reception desk called ambulance. The applicant was diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and situational neurosis, taken to the Rivne municipal hospital, administered medication and discharged on the same day.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Grounds for second decision to close investigation almost identical to first, quashed by court with reference to shortcomings in inquiry (compare Dzhulay v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a024439\/06, \u00a7\u00a055 and 59, 3\u00a0April\u00a02014);<\/p>\n \n B. Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Artricles\u00a08 and 13 of the Convention<\/strong> \u2013<\/em> compulsion to undergo sobriety and psychiatric fitness tests<\/strong><\/p>\n \n C. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\n Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant: <\/em><\/strong>EUR\u00a05,000 in non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n EUR\u00a05,000 (non\u2011pecuniary damage) plus any tax chargeable to applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n 3. Application no.\u00a074276\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n On 25 September 2010 body of G.Ch., the applicant\u2019s mother-in-law, was discovered with traces of violent death. On the same date the applicant, invited for questioning as a witness by the Vasylkiv police, was detained, without any record being made, and ill-treated until he agreed to write a \u201cstatement of surrender\u201d indicating that he had come to the police office for reporting, of his own free will, that he had murdered G.\u00a0Ch. In particular, the officers repeatedly kicked and hit the applicant with a truncheon, attempted to insert it in his anal orifice, put a plastic bag on the applicant\u2019s head to blindfold him; put a gas mask on his head and filled it with smoke, electrocuted the applicant and threatened to prosecute his wife as an accomplice to murder.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) No full-scale investigation, only repeated rounds of pre-investigation inquiry (for relevant examples, see, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a017674\/02 and 39081\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0310-12, 1\u00a0July\u00a02010; Lyapin v.\u00a0Russia<\/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 \n B. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\n Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \n\n
\n 4. Application no.\u00a078541\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n