FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF SKOROKHODOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 56697/09)       JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 14 November 2013  FINAL 14/02/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Skorokhodov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, Paul Lemmens, Aleš Pejchal, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 56697/09) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Dmitriy Leonidovich Skorokhodov (“the applicant”), on 14 October 2009.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy.3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of his alleged ill‑treatment and that the length of the proceedings in his case had been excessive. He relied on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.4. On 12 January 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv.6. At the relevant time he was working as a shipping agent at a private company. According to the applicant, on 28 November 2005 R., the deputy director of the company, and L., the head of security there, decided to question the applicant about the disappearance of cash from one of the company’s shops. In the course of the argument the applicant was beaten up.7. On the same day, the applicant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a closed traumatic head injury and numerous injuries to his body. The incident was reported to the police.8. On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the law-enforcement authorities about the ill-treatment.9. On 7 December 2005 the police refused to open an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, noting that the medical assessment of the applicant’s injuries had not been completed.10. On 26 December 2005 a forensic medical expert issued a report finding that on 28 November 2005 the applicant had sustained the following injuries: a closed traumatic head injury; bruises to his nose, eyes, lower jaw, upper lip and left ear; a cut to his right upper eyelid; an injury to the left side of his waist affecting the kidney; bruises to the left side of his groin and scrotum; and bruises to his limbs. The expert classified the injuries as minor.11. On 23 January 2006 the prosecutor quashed the decision of 7 December 2005 as unfounded and ordered further pre-investigation enquiries.12. The police adopted decisions refusing to open an investigation on 16 February, 2 March, 4 April 2006 for the reason that there had been no corpus delicti. The decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutors as unsubstantiated and the police officers were given instructions to conduct further pre-investigation enquiries.13. On 21 May 2006 the police once again decided not to open an investigation considering that there had been no corpus delicti.14. On 14 June 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region quashed the decision of 21 May 2006 as unfounded. He noted that the file did not disprove the applicant’s consistent allegations that he had been beaten by R. and L. with a wooden bat and cut with a knife with the aim of making him confess to taking the cash in the shop. The prosecutor further found that the available evidence was sufficient for the institution of criminal proceedings against R. and L. under Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code (torture). He therefore opened proceedings and remitted the case to the police for an investigation. The police officer responsible for the previous decisions not to open an investigation was disciplined.15. In the course of investigation the authorities seized medical documentation in respect of the applicant, ordered a forensic medical examination, questioned the applicant and witnesses, and carried out a reconstruction of the events with the participation of a forensic medical expert. As a preventive measure, R. and L. were required to give a written undertaking not to abscond. They were questioned as suspects.16. On 12 June 2007 the police closed the investigation. According to their decision, the injuries sustained by the applicant in the course of the conflict with R. and L. were classified as minor and the specific elements of torture set out in Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code were not present. The police therefore recommended that the applicant bring a private prosecution against R. and L., according to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.17. On 28 September 2007 the supervising prosecutor reversed that decision as unfounded and remitted the case for further investigation. The prosecutor noted, inter alia, that confrontations between the applicant, the witnesses and R. and L. should have been carried out; another reconstruction of the events was also required. The prosecutor also pointed out that R. and L. were official persons at the company and no decision was taken whether it was appropriate to investigate the crimes of exceeding or abuse of office by them.18. Subsequently, the applicant complained to the authorities that the proceedings had been unreasonably delayed. He received the response that the investigation had been carried out properly and that most of the delay had been due to the forensic medical examination centre, which was heavily overloaded.19. As of 2 July 2012 the investigation was still pending. The parties did not comment on further proceedings in that case.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAWA. Criminal Code of 200120. Article 125 of the Code provides:“1. Intentional infliction of a minor bodily injury shall be punished ...2. Intentional infliction of a minor bodily injury leading to short-time health disorder shall be punished ...”21. Article 127 of the Code, as worded at the relevant time, provided:“1. Torture, that is, the intentional causing of severe physical pain or physical or moral suffering by way of beating, tormenting or committing other violent acts with the purpose of compelling the victim or other person to commit an act against his or her will ... shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of from three to five years.2. The same acts, if committed repeatedly or premeditatedly by a group of persons, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of from five to ten years. ...”B. Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (in force at the relevant time)22. Article 27 § 1 of the Code provided, inter alia, that proceedings concerning the crimes stipulated in Article 125 of the Criminal Code could be instituted only upon a complaint by the victim, who was entitled to conduct the prosecution in court. In the event of such a private prosecution, there was no pre-trial investigation.23. The other relevant provisions of the Code can be found in the judgment in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 45, 15 May 2012).C. Code of Civil Procedure of 18 March 200424. Article 201 of the Code provides, inter alia, that a court is obliged to suspend its examination of a civil case if that case cannot be examined prior to the outcome of other pending criminal proceedings.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION25. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of his ill-treatment.26. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:Article 3 (Prohibition of torture)“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”A. Admissibility27. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits1. Submissions by the parties28. The Government submitted that during the pre-investigation enquiries and the subsequent pre-trial investigation the authorities had taken all the necessary steps in order to establish the circumstances of the incident. The applicant’s requests and complaints had been properly considered. Moreover, by virtue of Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, the applicant could have instituted a private prosecution against R. and L. in a court in order to seek their punishment.29. The applicant insisted that the investigation of his ill-treatment had been ineffective.2. The Court’s assessment30.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation