Published on 3 October 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 18939/16 Anton Volodymyrovych RUSTINOV against Ukraine lodged on 16 March 2016 communicated on 11 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s complaints of his alleged ill ‑ treatment suffered on 1 March 2014 near the building of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration from private persons opposing the pro-Maidan demonstration, in which the applicant participated.

In particular, the applicant complained that numerous police officers were present near the demonstration but failed to abide by their positive obligation to protect him from ill-treatment and that his complaints to the police about the above alleged negligence had no effect. He raised this complaint under Article 3 of the Convention separately and in conjunction with Article 13.

The applicant provided a copy of the forensic report recording his bodily injuries (bruises on the right hand, torso, abrasions on the legs and contused wounds on the left leg). The prosecutor’s office closed the criminal proceedings opened under Article 367 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty) three times for lack of corpus delicti . The applicant appealed against two out of three of these decisions to a national court, which each time ordered additional investigations, but the Prosecutor did not follow the national court’s instructions in this respect. The applicant did not appeal against the third decision of the prosecutor’s office of 16 September 2015 closing the criminal proceedings, complaining about the ineffectiveness of the existing remedy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention relating to the alleged failure of the police officers to protect him from ill-treatment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

2. In the affirmative, has the applicant exhausted such a remedy, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicant’s allegations about the lack of police protection, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention? (see, mutatis mutandis , Milanović v. Serbia , no. 44614/07, §§ 82-84, 14 December 2010; Identoba and Others v. Georgia , no. 73235/12, §§ 65-66, 12 May 2015, and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine , no. 74768/10, §§ 125-127, 18 June 2019)

4. The Government, by providing copies of the relevant internal documents, are invited to account for the planning of the security arrangements undertaken by the Ministry of the Interior in advance of the event of 1 March 2014.

5. The parties are invited to provide information and relevant material concerning the investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment on 1 March 2014.