Published on 3 April 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 55886/18 Viktor Mykolayovych KALIBSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 19 November 2018 communicated on 16 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s complaints regarding the lengthy investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries (Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention).

The applicant lived in Donetsk Region. In December 2007 he was beaten up by a certain T. Criminal investigations into the beating were instituted shortly after. The eyewitnesses stated that T. had indeed punched the applicant and caused him injuries.

On 27 July 2011 the Starobyshiv Court found T. guilty, sentenced him to two years of corrective labour and ordered him to pay compensation to the applicant. On 5 August 2011 the prosecutors appealed against that decision, pointing out that T.’s defence rights had been violated during the trial. The applicant also appealed, claiming a higher amount of compensation. On 15 June 2012 the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 27 July 2011 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Starobyshiv Court. On 4 September 2013 the court terminated the criminal proceedings as time barred. On 12 December 2013 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first instance court.

On 12 March 2014, the Starobyshiv Court terminated the proceedings against T. as time barred. On 4 July 2014 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. The Starobyshiv town was occupied by illegal military groups and the Ukrainian Government lost control over the territory in question. On 3 December 2015 the applicant requested a first instance court located on the territory still under governmental control to reinstate the proceedings. On 24 December 2015 his request was refused on the ground that there was no legal ground to reinstate the proceedings.

The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the criminal proceedings against T. have not been completed. He complains, under Article 13, that no effective remedies are available to him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (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. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?