Communicated on 16 April 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 8297/10 Valentin Vladimirovich KOLIYCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 1 February 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s ill-treatment by traffic police officers, who had allegedly severely beaten him and damaged his vehicle with a hammer for his failure to stop his car on their demand. Serious bodily injuries had been confirmed by a number of medical examinations of the applicant, including two forensic medical examinations. The forensic experts also confirmed the likelihood of the applicant ’ s version of the circumstances in which the injuries had been inflicted. Criminal proceedings which had been instituted against the police officers upon the incident were eventually discontinued by the prosecutor ’ s office for the lack of evidence of a crime. The prosecutor found, inter alia , that the police indeed used force against the applicant and was thus responsible for a part of his injuries but that the use of force had been lawful and had been provoked by the applicant ’ s own behaviour. The origin of the remainder of the applicant ’ s injuries had not been established by the prosecutor. The domestic courts upheld the prosecutor ’ s decision, having found, inter alia , no need to establish the origin of all injuries of the applicant as there was no evidence that they had been inflicted by the police. They dismissed the applicant ’ s objection under this head as well as his other arguments regarding shortcomings in the prosecutor ’ s investigation. The final decision discontinuing the proceedings against the police officers was delivered by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 21 January 2010.

The applicant raises his complaint under both material and procedural limbs of Articles 3 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the failure to conduct the effective investigation upon his criminal complaint against the police officers prevented him from seeking damages caused by his ill-treatment as his civil claim would depend on the outcome of the mentioned criminal proceedings and, in particular, on the establishment of guilt of the police officers concerned.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the traffic police on 21 March 2008, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment infringing Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of this provision?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was he able to obtain compensation for the damages caused by the ill-treatment complained of (see, mutatis mutandis, Basenko v. Ukraine , no. 24213/08, §§ 103-106, 26 November 2015)?