FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KIS AND LEVCHUK v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 910/18)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
9 April 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kis and Levchuk v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Gilberto Felici, President,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy,
 Vahe Grigoryan, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 910/18) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 December 2017 by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Zoryan Romanovych Kis and Mr Tymur Anzorovych Levchuk (“the applicants”), who were born in 1982 and 1994 respectively, live in Kyiv and were represented by Ms Y.V. Naumenko, a lawyer practising in Kyiv;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the treatment to which the applicants were subjected in connection with a social experiment in which they, as a same-sex couple, participated. 2. In 2015 an online magazine, Bird in Flight, decided to carry out an experiment, similar to one which had already been run in Moscow, and the applicants decided to participate in it. They had to walk around Kyiv city centre, holding hands in order to gauge the level of tolerance within Ukrainian society towards same-sex couples. Bodyguards were in attendance during the experiment, which was also filmed. 3. On 15 July 2015 the applicants walked around the streets of central Kyiv for about an hour, starting at approximately 7 p.m. As nothing happened, they decided to step up the level of public display of affection. Following the approval of the organisers of the experiment, one of the applicants sat on the other’s lap on a bench in Khreshchatyk Street (the main street in Kyiv), with one of them holding a bouquet of flowers. 4. Soon afterwards a group of young people approached the applicants, asking whether they were patriots and whether they wished their nation to be the best. The applicants responded that their understanding of patriotism was slightly different, regarding it to mean being in favour of equality. The people who accosted the applicants also reportedly said: “The guys have [this place] mixed up with America” and “Europe! Europe!”
5. Afterwards, they subjected the applicants to pepper spray and started kicking them. The bodyguards intervened immediately, such that the violent part of the confrontation lasted some three to five seconds. The applicants did not seek any medical assistance or undergo a forensic medical examination. 6. On 22 July 2015 the video-recording of the experiment was published on the internet[1]. On it, faces of some members of the group that accosted the applicants are visible. On the same day and afterwards, a number of news websites reported on the social experiment and its results. 7. On 29 July 2015 the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint on behalf of himself and the second applicant. He described the social experiment, the attack, and asked the police to open a criminal case under Article 161 § 2 of the Criminal Code (violation of the principle of equality of citizens committed with violence)[2] to investigate whether the applicants had been discriminated against as homosexual people. He made no mention of any injuries. The complaint referred to the video of the incident posted online, providing its Internet address. 8. The second applicant also lodged a complaint with the police to the same effect (no copy was provided to the Court). On 4 August 2015 the police questioned the second applicant. He reiterated his complaint and added that, after the incident, he had not sought any medical assistance. According to the police, he was offered to undergo a forensic medical examination to determine the gravity of any injuries but he refused. 9. On 5 August 2015 the police opened criminal proceedings, under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code, into hooliganism committed by a group[3]. 10. On 12 August 2015 the police closed the proceedings for lack of evidence. The decision stated that there was no evidence other than the victim’s statements, that there were no eyewitnesses and that no video-surveillance had been found that could have led to the perpetrators being identified. Furthermore, the second applicant had refused to undergo a forensic medical examination, despite such an examination being obligatory. This meant that there were no constituent elements of the offence of hooliganism. 11. The applicants’ lawyer was informed of the decision on 2 October 2015. On 25 November 2015 a copy of the decision was sent to her, in response to her repeated letters in which she insisted that no copy of the decision had been received. She appealed against the decision, complaining that the police had failed to include in the case file the video-recording of the event made for the online magazine, to interview the cameraman or to classify the offence as one falling within Article 161 of the Criminal Code. She also criticised the findings of the police concerning the obligatory nature of a forensic medical examination. 12. The decision of 12 August 2015 and further similar decisions were set aside by the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv or the local prosecutor on account of them being premature and the case was repeatedly returned to the police for investigation. 13. In May 2016 the applicants’ lawyer asked for the offence to be reclassified as an offence under Article 161 of the Criminal Code. On 1 June 2016 the police dismissed the lawyer’s application, as no elements of an offence were apparent from the actions of the unidentified individuals. 14. On 18 July 2016 the police collected data from mobile phone base stations at the location where the incident had taken place. 15. On 14 October 2016 an investigator drew up a report which stated that it had not been possible to question the editor or the journalist from Bird in Flight magazine who had participated in the experiment, nor had it been possible to identify the perpetrators. 16. The proceedings were again discontinued on 27 December 2016. However, on 16 June 2017 the local prosecutor and, subsequently, on 11 August 2017 the Shevchenkivskyi District Court set aside that decision. 17. In September 2017 the applicants’ lawyer informed the police that the applicants had recognised a woman who allegedly belonged to the group that had attacked them in 2015. They had seen the woman in a video of events that had taken place near the Russian embassy in Kyiv in connection with a picket concerning Russian nationalists imprisoned at the time in Russia. The applicants identified a group, S., which they believed she belonged to. 18. There is no indication of any follow-up on that information. 19. In January 2021 and January 2022, the investigator drew up two reports which stated that it had not been possible to question the magazine’s editor and journalist who had participated in the experiment and that it had not been possible to identify the perpetrators. On 10 July 2023 the police questioned the editor of the magazine, who reiterated the applicants’ statements. In July 2023 the police lodged an application with the Shevchenkivskyi Court, asking for leave to access documents and data in the possession of local mobile phone operators. 20. According to the most recent available information, the criminal proceedings are still pending.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 14
Outcome: violation