FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PYLYPCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 59255/14 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG14 December 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Pylypchuk and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2023,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 57293/16 5. The Court notes that application no. 57293/16 was lodged by Ms Galina Nikolayevna Kondratyeva complaining about inadequate investigation into the beating of her son by private persons, while her son died shortly after the incident in a traffic accident.6. Although the respondent State did not raise any objection as to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae, the Court considers of its own motion that this issue calls for examination (see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, ECHR 2009).7. The Court did not exclude the possibility that it might recognise locus standi in the context of complaints under Article 3 for applicants who complained of treatment concerning their late relative exclusively, where such applicants “show either a strong moral interest, besides the mere pecuniary interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or other compelling reasons, such as an important general interest which requires their case to be examined”. Since the victim of the ill-treatment died just after the incident, it was the applicant who has been seeking an effective investigation into her son’s ill-treatment for several years at domestic level. In the light of all the foregoing considerations and in the particular circumstances of this case, it is proposed to accept the applicant’s locus standi in respect of her complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, §§ 106-114, 11 February 2016).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention8. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.9.

Outcome for Article 3: violation