Published on 21 June 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 19524/13 Ganna Sergiyivna SYSOYEVA against Ukraine and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 31 May 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

COMPLAINTS

Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicants complain about ineffective investigations into their ill-treatment, inflicted by private parties.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of the complaints concerning the ineffective investigations into the applicants ’ injuries inflicted by private parties?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name ,

date of birth ,

place of residence

Represented by

The background to the Case and the Domestic Proceedings

19524/13

04/03/2013

Ganna

Sergiyivna SYSOYEVA

22/09/1992

Kostyantynivka

1. The circumstances of the incident:

On 20/12/2008 when the applicant participated in the rehearsal of the New Year ’ s school play her classmate had thrown a rope, which hit the applicant into the left eye.

2. The course of the investigation and its findings:

(i) 29/01/2009 – the applicant ’ s request to institute criminal investigation was rejected;

(ii) 21/01-27/04/2009 – a forensic-medical examination was conducted and according to its conclusion the applicant was diagnosed with, inter alia , contusion of the left eye, post-traumatic hemophthalmia of the left eye caused by the blunt object;

(iii) 18/06/2009 – the investigator set aside the decision of 29/01/2009 and ordered further pre-investigative inquiries;

(iv) 14/09/2009 – the criminal investigation was instituted into the incident;

(v) 19/09/2009 – the applicant was recognised as a civil plaintiff within the criminal proceedings. On many occasions the investigator ordered the repeated forensic-medical examinations;

(vi) The criminal proceedings were discontinued and re-opened on several occasions. Specifically, as it appears from the case-file, the last time on 22/04/2014 the investigating judge of the Kostiantynivskyy Local Court of Donetsk Region quashed the termination of criminal proceedings. The court noted, inter alia , that there had remained controversial testimonies of the applicant and the possible perpetrator; the investigator had not addressed the applicant ’ s statement that at the moment of the incident she had been staying in front of the perpetrator and he had thrown the rope in the applicant ’ s direction deliberately; the investigator had not fulfilled the prosecutor ’ s orders to conduct cross-examination of the applicant and the perpetrator;

(v) 18/04/2018 – the applicant informed the Court that there had been no progress in her case and that the investigation was pending.

41399/15

11/08/2015

Valeriy

Mykolayovych LYSENKO

16/06/1963

Kharkiv

1. The circumstances of the incident:

On 31/07/2011 a private individual, S., inflicted bodily injuries upon the applicant.

2. The course of the investigation and its findings:

(i) 07/11/2011 – according to the conclusion of the forensic-medical examination the applicant sustained bodily injuries;

(ii) 12/12/2011 - the criminal proceedings were instituted into the incident. The applicant claimed that the investigator had not been impartial, since the chief of police was the close relative of S.;

(iii) 27/03/2013 – the proceedings were discontinued, in spite of the fact that no investigative actions were taken in the case;

(iv) 05/06/2013 – the Velykoburlutskyy Local Court of Kharkiv Region set aside the latter decision as ill-founded;

(v) 20/06/2013 – the applicant lodged a claim with the investigator, requesting interrogation of witnesses;

(vi) 05/09/2013 – the local court acknowledged the investigator ’ s inactivity and ordered the investigator to consider the applicant ’ s request;

(vii) 13/06/2014 – the applicant again lodged a request before the investigator to interrogate the witnesses;

(viii) 24/06/2014 – the court again urged the investigator to consider the request of the applicant;

(ix) 26/12/2014 – the local court ordered the institution of the criminal proceedings against the investigator in the applicant ’ s case, because the investigation was substantially delayed;

(x) 27/12/2014- in this relation the criminal proceedings were instituted;

(xi) 6/07/2015 – the local court once again acknowledged the investigator ’ s inactivity and urged to examine the applicant ’ s claim;

(xii) 11/06/2016 – the applicant died;

(xiii) 27/08/2018 – the applicant ’ s daughter Mrs O. informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application of her father. She also informed that there had been no progress in the proceedings in the applicant ’ s case and that it was still pending.

2637/17

30/12/2016

Olga

Kostyantynivna SITENKO

Chernivtsi

Bogdan

Vasylyovych

FOKIY

1. The circumstances of the incident:

On 30/04/2007 the applicant had a fight with her sister in law, D., who allegedly hit the applicant in the head by a hoe.

2 . The course of the investigation and its findings:

(i) 08/05/2007 – according to the forensic-medical examination the applicant was diagnosed with closed head injury and soft tissue bruises of the head;

(ii) 08/05/2007 – the applicant ’ s request to institute criminal investigation was rejected;

(iii) 14/06/2007 – the investigator set aside the latter decision and ordered further pre-investigative inquiries; he noted that it had been necessary to conduct the forensic-medical examination again, because the mechanism of how the applicant had received injuries had been unclear;

(iv) 03/07/2007 – the criminal investigation was instituted against D. into infliction of bodily injuries to the applicant;

(v) 25/07/2007 – the applicant was given a victim status;

(vi) 26/07/2007 – D. was charged on account of infliction of bodily injuries upon the applicant;

(vii) 02/08/2007 – an indictment against D. was issued and sent to a court for trial;

(viii) 24/09/2007 – the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal case, seeking compensation of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages;

(ix) 09/12/2008 – the Kitsmanskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi Region terminated the criminal proceedings and exempted D. from criminal liability because of the lack of social danger of crime;

(x) 17/02/2009 – the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal quashed the latter decision and remitted the case to a first-instance court for fresh consideration. An appellate court noted that the first-instance court had not provided any reasons for the loss of D. ’ s act of its social danger;

(xi) 16/09/2009 – a local court once again exempted D. from criminal liability on the ground that the staff of enterprise bailed her out;

(xii) 24/11/2009 – an appellate court set aside this decision and remitted the case for further investigation. The court noted that, in spite of the fact that D. hit the applicant in the head by a hoe, the version of an attempt of the applicant ’ s murder was never investigated;

(xiii) 30/01/2010 – 05/12/2013 – the forensic-medical examination was conducted;

(xiv) 11/09/2015 – the investigation in the applicant ’ s case was registered with the State Register of Criminal Proceedings;

(xv) 27/11/2015 – the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicant that on 03/09/2015 the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as to the ineffective investigation of her case;

(xvi) 20/07/2018 – the investigating judge of the Kitsmanskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi Region ordered that the investigator examined the applicant ’ s request to investigate the attempt of her murder by D.;

(xvii) 02/10/2018 – the Kitsmanskyy Local Court ordered that a local prosecutor ’ s office should undertake all measure in order to conduct the criminal investigation in her case within reasonable time-limits;

(xviii) 26/02/2019 – the applicant lodged a civil claim against D. within the criminal proceedings, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages;

(xix) 01/10/2019 – the Sadgirskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi following the prosecutor ’ s petition terminated the criminal proceedings against D. owing to the expiry of the limitation period for criminal liability; D. pleaded guilty and was dispensed from the criminal liability.

(xx) 14/11/2019 – the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a local court; it also noted that it was open for her to lodge a civil claim for damages within separate proceedings;

(xxi) 21/02/2020 – the Supreme Court refused to admit the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law for consideration, because she had not provided an y compelling arguments that the decisions of lower courts had been unlawful.

38538/18

30/07/2018

Mark

Andriyovych SHAPRUNOV

24/07/1988

Zaporizhzhya

1. The circumstances of the incident:

On 29/05/2016 the applicant went to a restaurant not far away from his flat, where he was approached by two strangers, a man and a woman. They started a conversation with the applicant and then the man went outside and was talking on the phone. The restaurant was equipped with video surveillance. After the applicant left the restaurant he was assaulted, beaten up and robbed by private individuals at the entrance of his flat. They allegedly had stolen his gold jewelleries which value was around UAH 108,262 (around EUR 3,383 at the relevant time). As a result of the incident the applicant sustained bodily injuries.

2. The course of the investigation and its findings:

(i) 29/05/2016 – a criminal investigation was instituted on account of the applicant ’ s robbery, causing him significant damages;

(ii) 06/06/2016 – following the applicant ’ s claim the investigator together with the applicant watched the video from the surveillance camera at the restaurant. According to the applicant there had been a gap in the recording of 40 minutes, which had been the time of the applicant ’ s presence at the restaurant;

(iii) 30/07/2016 – the applicant lodged a claim, requesting the investigator to seize the respective video recordings;

(iv) 10/08/2016 – at a briefing in the Zaporizhzhia Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office it was held that the criminal case had not been properly investigated and the investigator had been urged to expedite the investigation;

(v) 24/10/2016 – the investigator re-qualified the criminal proceedings into robbery combined with assault, with a view that the bodily injuries were inflicted upon the applicant as a result of the incident;

(vi) November 2016 – the video recording was seized, but the video tape for the date of the incident was not there anymore. According to the applicant, the investigator had never interrogated him about the description of the jewelleries that had been stolen from him. It appears from the case-file that the criminal investigation had been pending at the time of lodging his application.

3. The civil proceedings:

(i) 29/05/2016 – the applicant lodged a civil claim against the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, seeking compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him by a crime and the ineffective investigation of his case. The applicant also relied on Article 1177 of Civil Code of Ukraine, claiming compensation for pecuniary damage as a victim of a crime from the State Treasury;

(ii) 31/10/2017 – a local court rejected his claims as ill-founded (that decision upheld on appeal and by the final ruling of the Supreme Court on 04/04/2018).

39759/18

04/08/2018

Ivan

Gavrylovych SOROKOVYY

16/01/1957

Poltava

Dmytro

Vasylyovych MALICHENKO

1. The circumstances of the incident:

On 28/05/2014 the applicant, an emergency doctor, brought to the hospital by an ambulance a patient who was in a state of alcohol intoxication. According to the applicant the hospital admission staff in a rude manner had been objecting the admission of the patient. When the applicant went to a separate room in order to complete the registration of the patient, he had been followed and approached by an unknown individual. The latter had been addressing the applicant in a rude manner regarding the recent conflict with the hospital admission staff. Then he had been suffocating the applicant by squeezing his throat. At that moment a medical assistant and an ambulance driver came to the room and liberated the applicant. The room was equipped with video surveillance and the applicant immediately called the police.

2. The course of the investigation and its findings:

(i) 29/05/2014 – a criminal investigation was instigated into the incident. The applicant claims that the investigator had not conducted the examination of the scene of the incident; he further claims that since the video recordings from the surveillance camera had not been seized in due time, those had been lost;

(ii) 04-06/06/2014 – the forensic-medical examination was conducted, which revealed bruising on the applicant ’ s face;

(iii) 18/06/2014 – possible perpetrator, certain M., a deputy chief of medicine of the hospital, was interrogated. He testified that it was the applicant who had started the fight;

(iv) subsequently the criminal proceedings were discontinued and re-opened on several occasions. Specifically, the last time on 30/11/2015 the Kyivskyy Local Court of Poltava set aside the termination of criminal proceedings, given that: the examination of the scene of the incident had not been conducted; the police officers who had examined the video recordings from the surveillance camera had not been questioned; not all witnesses had been interrogated;

(v) 07/03/2018 – the local court acknowledged the investigator ’ s inactivity regarding the applicant ’ s request to study his case-file;

(vi) 03/05/2018 – the local court once again acknowledged the investigator ’ s inactivity and urged him to examine the applicant ’ s claim regarding the enforcement of the judgment of 07/03/2018;

(vii) 25/05/2018 – the Poltava Local Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicant that the investigation had been pending in his case.

55637/18

05/11/2018

Dmytro

Grygorovych

FYSUN

10/12/1980

Marnach

1. The circumstances of the incident:

On 01/10/2015 the applicant, a police officer, in the course of arrest of certain U. was beaten up by the latter and other unknown private persons.

2. The course of the investigation and its findings:

(i) 02/10/2015 – a criminal investigation into the incident was instituted;

(ii) 05/11/2015 – the forensic-medical expert examination was conducted and according to its results the applicant had concussion and a hematoma on the left eye;

(iii) 11/04 and 05/05/2017 – a prosecutor acknowledged that the investigation was marked by delays; he also informed the applicant that it had been established that, apart from U., other unknown persons had inflicted bodily injuries upon the applicant and the corresponding investigative measures had been taken in order to identify those persons;

(iv) subsequently on two occasions the criminal proceedings were terminated on the ground of lack of constituent elements of a crime. The decisions were quashed by the prospector and by a local court as premature and unsubstantiated. Specifically, on 14/06/2017 the investigating judge of Oktiabyrskyy Local Court of Poltava set aside the decision regarding the termination of criminal proceedings of 06/06/2017; the court noted, inter alia , that the investigator had not taken all necessary actions in order to identify all the perpetrators of the applicant ’ s beating; to identify and question the witnesses to the incident; and to examine the scene of the incident;

(v) 31/10/2017 – the investigating authorities sent to the applicant a letter, informing him that: the investigators in his case should be disciplined because of neglect of their duties in his case, but they had already been disciplined on other occasions; and that on 13/10/2017 U. had been officially notified on suspicion of infliction of bodily injuries to the police officer;

(vi) 13/07/2018 – the Poltavskyy Local Court of Poltava Region approved the settlement agreement between U. (the accused), his lawyer and the prosecutor with a consent of the applicant as to finding U. guilty and punishing him to 3 years ’ imprisonment; and ordered U. ’ s conditional release for a two-year probationary period. According to the applicant despite the fact that it had been established by the investigation that other unknown persons had been involved in his beating, there had been no progress made by the investigating authorities in the identification of those unknown persons.