FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF GALYTSKYY v. UKRAINE(Application no. 9151/17)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG26 June 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Galytskyy v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: María Elósegui, President, Andreas Zünd, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 9151/17) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 January 2017 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Galytskyy (“the applicant”), who was born in 1970, lives in Kryvyi Rih and was represented by Ms M.V. Zakharova, a lawyer practising in Kryvyi Rih;the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 June 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by staff members at the Kryvyi Rih pre‑trial detention centre (“SIZO”) and that there was no effective domestic investigation into his related complaints.2. In December 2007 the applicant was found to have breached the terms of the conditional suspended prison sentence previously imposed on him. On 26 December 2007 he was detained with a view to the enforcement of that sentence. Medical examinations carried out on that date and on the following day in the Dnipropetrovsk temporary detention facility indicated no sign of any injuries, health concerns or other complaints.3. On the morning of 27 December 2007 the applicant was taken to the Kryvyi Rih SIZO. According to the applicant, at approximately 1 p.m. several officers subjected him to such a severe beating that he lost consciousness. The applicant submitted that, once he had regained consciousness, he had been unable to walk on account of acute pain in his right hip. He alleged that he spent three days in the SIZO medical unit without any assistance. He also alleged that the SIZO doctor warned him that if he wished to remain safe he should not make any complaints.4. On 4 January 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO, where he was immediately hospitalised on account of a closed femoral neck fracture. The Government submitted, referring to the explanations provided by two staff members of the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO hospital on an unspecified date, that at the relevant time the applicant’s fracture had been four to six months old. The applicant’s medical file from that hospital has been lost (see paragraph 12 below).5. On 24 January 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Luhansk SIZO where he was hospitalised until 8 March 2008. He allegedly explained that his injury had been caused by an accidental fall on 30 December 2007.6. On 21 February 2008 the applicant was certified as having a second degree disability on account of his hip fracture. That certificate was valid for one year.7. On 13 February 2009 the applicant was released.8. On 17 February 2009 the applicant was examined by a traumatologist on account of the persistent pain in his right hip and his difficulties in walking. He was diagnosed with bony ankylosis (fusion of a joint with bone tissue) of the right hip joint resulting from incorrect consolidation of the pelvic and femoral neck fracture, together with subluxation of the hip. His right hip and the right side of his pelvis were deformed and asymmetrical and his right leg was 7 cm shorter than the left. It was noted in the hospital records that the applicant had stated that he had had “an [innocuous] accident” on 26 December 2007, while in detention. He received inpatient medical treatment from 11 March to 25 March 2009 but saw no improvement. The applicant was subsequently certified as having a third degree disability (the mildest level) on account of his hip injury and was granted life-long disability status.9. From April 2009 the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the prosecution authorities in respect of his alleged ill-treatment and the lack of timely medical assistance in the Kryvyi Rih SIZO. He submitted that he had been afraid to complain earlier, while he remained in prison.10. The Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office repeatedly refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter.11. Finally, on 28 February 2014, the prosecutor opened an investigation after having been ordered to do so by a court. The applicant’s request to be granted the procedural status of victim was, however, rejected as unfounded. He was examined as a witness at a later date.12. On 10 April 2014 the investigation was discontinued on the grounds that there was no indication of any criminal offence. It was noted that all the relevant records from the Kryvyi Rih SIZO had been destroyed when the statutory storage period expired and that the applicant’s medical file from the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO hospital, and his X-rays from January 2008, had been lost. Although a forensic medical expert examination had been ordered on 21 March 2014, the absence of essential medical documents made it impossible to conduct such an examination. The prosecutor also referred to statements made by the Kryvyi Rih SIZO doctor, who submitted that when the applicant had arrived on 27 December 2007 he had been suffering from acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome and had been lame in the right leg due to chronic thrombophlebitis. The doctor stated that the applicant had already had an old hip fracture that had initially been overlooked. In addition, the prosecutor relied on statements from two of the applicant’s neighbours, who said that they had often seen him drunk, sometimes to the point of falling asleep on the stairs.

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