CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2023

.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 } Published on 6 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 82213/17 L.S. against Ukraine lodged on 26 November 2017 communicated on 18 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the complaints raised under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the applicant’s ill-treatment by her former daughter ‑ in ‑ law, D., and her grandson, S., between 17 and 19 May 2014. The applicant complains that D. blocked her inside her room for two hours on 17   May 2014 and during the night from 18 to 19 May 2014 by dragging a piano and leaving it in front of the applicant’s room’s door with the aim to force her to move out from the flat. In the morning of 19 May 2014, D. and S. evicted her from the flat against her will and, in doing so, inflicted minor bodily injuries on her. The applicant submitted that she had been living in the flat with her son as from 2010, whereas D. had been living separately as from 2005. According to the medical forensic reports, the applicant sustained fourteen bruises on her face and upper body. The criminal investigation, commenced in 2014, is still pending. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see, for instance, Muta v. Ukraine , no. 37246/06, § 59, 31   July 2012; Skorokhodov v. Ukraine , no. 56697/09, § 32, 14 November 2013, and Irina Smirnova v. Ukraine , no. 1870/05, § 70-71, 13 October 2016), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?