Communicated on 23 August 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 46990/07 Vira Maksymivna KIN against Ukraine lodged on 17 October 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Vira Maksymivna Kin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Dubno .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the principal of a private school in the town of Dubno , in the Rivne Region.

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and the events of 29 May 2000

On 30 March 2000 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for failure to comply with a court decision ordering the reinstatement of a teacher at the private school.

At about 9.00 a.m. on 29 May 2000 officers from Dubno police broke down the front door of the applicant ’ s house. Inside the house, an investigator from the Dubno inter-district prosecutor ’ s office ordered the applicant to go to his office for questioning. When the applicant refused, he asked the police officers to ensure her compulsory appearance for questioning. According to the applicant, the police officers beat her, twisted her arms behind her back and forced her out of the house barefoot. They placed her in a police car and took her to the office of the investigator.

At about 1 p.m. on 29 May 2000 the applicant was released.

On the next day the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted injuries on her shoulders.

On 9 April 2001 the Dubno inter-district prosecutor ’ s office discontinued the investigation into the applicant ’ s criminal case, having regard to the insignificance of the applicant ’ s offence.

On 2 August 2001 the Dubno Town Court quashed the decision of 9 April 2001 as unfounded and ordered further investigation.

On 14 August 2001 the investigation was completed and the case file was referred to the Dubno Town Court for trial.

On 30 June 2004 and 13 March 2006 the Dubno Town Court adopted judgments in the applicant ’ s case, which were quashed as unfounded by the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal.

On 30 January 2007 the Dubno Town Court convicted the applicant of failure to comply with a court decision, and decided to punish her with a fine. However, it ultimately did not impose any punishment, as the statute of limitation had expired.

On 17 April 2007 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the judgment of 30 January 2007.

On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law, on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply with procedural rules when submitting it.

2. Domestic proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment and related issues

On 2 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Rivne regional prosecutor ’ s office regarding the events of 29 May 2000. She was examined by a medical expert, who found that she had sustained five bruises on her shoulders and had injured her left shoulder ligaments. The expert stated that the injuries had been caused by blunt solid objects; they could have been sustained in the circumstances described by the applicant.

On 30 June 2000 the Rivne regional prosecutor ’ s office, having conducted the pre-investigation inquiry, refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti .

On 20 March 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Prosecutor General ’ s Office reversed the decision of 30 June 2000 as unsubstantiated, and ordered a further inquiry.

On 29 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Dubno Town Court, seeking damages for the violation of the inviolability of her home and her unlawful arrest and ill-treatment on 29 May 2000.

On 9 July 2007 the Dubno Town Court found that on 29 May 2000 the applicant had been ill-treated and unlawfully taken from her home to the investigator ’ s office. The court found that the prosecution authorities had violated her right to the inviolability of her home, right to liberty and right to respect for human dignity. The court awarded the applicant 500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 26 May 2008 the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 9 July 2007.

The applicant appealed on points of law, contesting the amount of the award.

On 8 May 2009 the Higher Administrative Court set a time-limit within which the applicant could rectify shortcomings in her appeal on points of law.

On 13 July 2009 the Higher Administrative Court returned the applicant ’ s appeal without examining it on the merits, after finding that she had failed to comply with the decision of 8 May 2009.

COMPLAINTS

1. With regard to the events of 29 May 2000, the applicant complains: under Article 8 of the Convention that her right to respect for her home was violated; under Article 3 of the Convention that she was ill-treated and humiliated; and under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that she was unlawfully deprived of her liberty between 9.00 a.m. and 1 p.m. on that day.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against her was excessive.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. With regard to the events of 29 May 2000, c an the applicant claim to be a victim of violations of Article 3, Article 5 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

The Government are invited to provide:

(a) relevant documents on the pre-investigation inquiries and further proceedings relating to the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment and violation of her rights by the police and prosecution authorities on 29 May 2000;

(b) documents on the compensation proceedings relating to the events of 29 May 2000.

2. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment , in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the alleged deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (b) or (c) of this provision?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

5. Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?