CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 novembre 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 19 December 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 78997/17 Vitaliy Yuriyovych SELYUK against Ukraine lodged on 10 November 2017 communicated on 28 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE This case concerns the applicant’s round-the-clock handcuffing to a hospital bed during his three-day stay there in May 2014, when undergoing medical treatment for acute bronchial asthma and being detained on suspicion of extortion. Following numerous complaints by the applicant’s mother, a criminal investigation into the matter was launched and eventually discontinued on several occasions, most recently by a final judicial ruling of 11 May 2017. The main reasons for discontinuing the investigation were the supposed absence of metal bars on the windows in the hospital ward at the material time, as well as the handcuffs having been equipped with a special extension chain. The applicants’ arguments about the absence of any evidence in support of those statements and about the unjustified and excessively restrictive nature of that measure were allegedly left without due response.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s round-the-clock handcuffing in hospital constitute an inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, was there an effective official investigation into the alleged ill‑treatment of the applicant?