Published on 3 April 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 10993/18 Andriy Vasylyovych ORLOV against Ukraine lodged on 24 February 2018 communicated on 16 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the ill-treatment of the applicant by a private person on 14 August 2009, resulting in his partial disability, the length and ineffectiveness of the investigations, and in particular the unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings allegedly owing to the failure of the State to organise the work of its court.

The State conducted the investigations and the case-file was sent to a court. In September 2013 Judge Ch., sitting in a single-judge formation, started the examination of the criminal case in which the applicant was a victim. On 30 September 2015 he held a hearing and pronounced a verdict, but did not issue a written version of the verdict. On 16 February 2016 Judge Ch. was dismissed by a Presidential order.

According to the letters from then Acting Head of the Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 10 November 2016 and 19 February 2018 and a letter from the State Court Administration of 26 July 2017, Judge Ch. examined the case and pronounced a verdict, but the case file did not contain a written or electronic version of the verdict. No reattribution of the case, its re-examination or any other solution was possible under the relevant Rules for Automatic Document Circulation System.

On 10 August 2018 the registry of the Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk sent an email to the applicant attaching a copy of the verdict in the above-mentioned criminal case, dated 30 September 2015, and a cover letter from the Head of the Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, stating that the said court sent a copy of the verdict to the applicant, for his information. The applicant contests the authenticity of this verdict.

Referring to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the investigation into his ill-treatment had been ineffective and lengthy. The present application falls to be examined under Article 3 (procedural limb).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the positive obligations of States under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation, which extends to the trial stage, were the proceedings in breach of the procedural requirements of that provision, in particular with regard to the delay which occurred between the pronouncement and delivery of the verdict (see mutatis mutandis , Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2) , no. 39326/02, § 34, 27 May 2010; N.D. v. Slovenia , no. 16605/09, § 58, 15 January 2015; and Kosteckas v. Lithuania , no. 960/13, § 41, 13 June 2017)?

2. The Government are requested to provide a copy of the verdict of the Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, dated 30 September 2015, issued in the case no. 200/11495/13-к, and to indicate the date on which the above-mentioned verdict was sent to the applicant.