CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 25 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 59670/14 Ivanna Ivanivna IVASHKIV against Ukraine lodged on 22 August 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an issue of domestic violence. In particular, between 2007 and 2013 I.V., the former husband of the applicant, inflicted minor bodily injuries on her on five occasions, which were recorded in the forensic reports. In this regard, the applicant filed numerous criminal complaints with the police and the national courts. On 27 June 2012 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Lviv found I.V. guilty of inflicting minor bodily injuries on the applicant in respect of one episode of 14 January 2010, sentenced him to one hundred hours of public works, but under the 2011 Amnesty Act released him from serving this sentence in view of his dependent mother’s old-age. After the criminal sentence, the applicant brought a civil claim against I.V., seeking non-pecuniary damage. On 17 December 2013 the Court of Appeal of Lviv Region diminished the amount of compensation from 5000   Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) to UAH   2000 on the grounds that I.V. was found guilty only of the above episode of 14   January 2010, that the applicant did not produce evidence of her medical treatment, but only her forensic examination report, and that it was the applicant who had provoked I.V. with her actions. The applicant complained that the investigation into her continuous ill ‑ treatment had been ineffective and that the criminal sentence of 27 June 2012 could not be considered as an adequate response, as it had produced no effect in preventing further violations by I.V. She further complained that the amount of compensation in her civil case was inadequate and that the national courts discriminated against her on the basis of her gender, when they blamed her for provoking I.V. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the domestic authorities discharge their positive obligations to protect the applicant from domestic violence and to prosecute the party responsible for such violence (see, mutatis mutandis , Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02 §§ 158-176, ECHR 2009)? Was the sentence of 27 June 2012, including the amount of compensation, an adequate response to the gravity of the offences in question? Did it produce a preventive or deterrent effect on the conduct of I.V.? (see Opuz cited above, § 170)?   2.     Was the applicant subjected to discrimination by the Court of Appeal of Lviv Region based on her gender, contrary to the requirements of Article   14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 taken in conjunction with Article 3 and/or 8 (see, mutatis mutandis , Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, §§   82 ‑ 91, 28 May 2013; Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 74839/10, §§   58-65, 16 July 2013; Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal , no.   17484/15, §   51, 25 July 2017)?