CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2024

.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 28 October 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20901/19 Dmytro Leonidovych PALYVODA against Ukraine lodged on 9 April 2019 communicated on 8 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged police ill-treatment of the applicant and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing domestic investigation. According to the applicant, on 20 March 2018 he went outside his apartment to inquire about the actions of the officers from the Kryvyi Rih Police Patrol, who were at that time arresting his neighbour. After the applicant attempted to engage in dialogue with the officers, one of them kicked the applicant in the leg and forcefully pushed him. As a result of these actions, the applicant sustained fractures to both of his legs and was subsequently admitted to hospital. On 22 March 2018 the Kryvyi Rih Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the alleged abuse of power by a police officer. However, since the newly established State Bureau of Investigation (the “SBI”), which is authorised under Ukrainian law to investigate police misconduct, was not yet operational at the time, the applicant’s case was transferred to the Kryvyi Rih Police Department. The applicant submits that throughout the police investigation his lawyer’s repeated motions to carry out specific investigative activities were either ignored or not adequately followed up, and that key evidence in the case – footage from the police officers’ bodycams – was not properly assessed. Furthermore, his requests to transfer the case to the SBI, which commenced operations on 27 November 2018, were denied. On 22 September 2019 the investigation was terminated due to the inability to identify the suspects and the expiration of procedural time limits. This decision was based on Article 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which at the relevant time required investigations into serious crimes where no suspects had been identified to be concluded within 18 months. In December 2019, following the applicant’s complaint, a district court overturned the decision to terminate the investigation, stating that after the SBI became operational, the police were no longer authorised to handle the applicant’s case. No reference was made to the statutory time limits. The current status of the investigation is unknown. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police and that there had been no effective investigation into the incident, particularly because those responsible for and carrying out the investigation had not   been independent   and impartial. The applicant died   on 7 May 2023. By letter of 18 July 2024 his mother informed the Court of her wish to pursue his application. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant submitted to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on 20 March 2018?   2.     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 Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV)?   3.     In particular, did the respondent State ensure the independence of the investigation of the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint (see Mocanu and   Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 320, 333, ECHR   2014 (extracts); Najafli v. Azerbaijan , no. 2594/07, § 52, 2 October 2012; Voykin and Others v. Ukraine , no. 47889/08, §§ 100-19, 27 March 2018)?