FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF ORLIK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 27454/11)        JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 11 February 2016      This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Orlik v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Síofra O’Leary, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2016,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 27454/11) 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, Ms Olga Nikolayevna Orlik (“the applicant”), on 15 April 2011.2. The applicant was represented by Mr I.P. Pogasiy, a lawyer practising in Kirovograd. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr B. Babin, of the Ministry of Justice.3. On 1 December 2014 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTS4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Oleksandrivka, Kirovograd Region.5. On 3 February 2007 the applicant was assaulted. According to the subsequent findings of medical experts, she sustained haematomas on her jaw, shoulder and hip, a bruise under her right eye, concussion, and a displaced rib fracture. The applicant alleges that her assailants were Mr and Mrs K., her daughter’s former parents-in-law, whereas the domestic authorities found that it was only Mrs K. who had assaulted the applicant. The incident occurred in front of the applicant’s two-year-old granddaughter.6. On 4 February 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the police.7. On 5 February 2007 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant. He found that she had haematomas which he classified as “minor bodily injuries”.8. On 14 February 2007 the Oleksandrivka District Police Department (“the Oleksandrivka police”) refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the incident.9. On 22 February 2007 a forensic medical examination of the applicant was carried out. The expert found that in addition to the previously noted haematomas, the applicant had also suffered concussion and a displaced rib fracture. The expert classified the injuries as “bodily harm of medium severity”.10. On 20 March 2007 the Oleksandrivka prosecutor overruled the decision of 14 February 2007 as premature and on 21 March 2007 instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the infliction of bodily harm of medium severity on the applicant.11. On 20 May 2007 the investigator suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator.12. On 29 August and 3 October 2007 the Oleksandrivka prosecutor’s office issued two decisions in which it overruled the investigator’s decision of 20 May 2007 as premature.13. On 6 October 2007 the investigator questioned Mr and Mrs K.14. On 1 December 2007 the investigator again suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator.15. On 10 December 2007 the Oleksandrivka prosecutor’s office, in response to the applicant’s complaint about the progress of the investigation, asked the Kirovograd Regional Police Department to have the police officers in charge of the investigation disciplined.16. On 21 January 2008 the Kirovograd Regional Police Department instructed the Oleksandrivka police to immediately resume the investigation.17. On 7 April 2008 the investigator decided to ask a forensic medical expert to determine the degree of gravity of the applicant’s injuries. On 22 September 2008 the expert drew up a report generally confirming the findings of 22 February 2007.18. On 15 May 2008 the Kirovograd Regional Police Department informed the applicant that the police officers in charge of the case had been disciplined for omissions in the investigation.19. On 23 October 2008 the Oleksandrivka Court absolved Mrs K. from criminal liability under an amnesty law, on the grounds that she had an elderly mother who was dependent on her. On 24 February 2009 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment, finding no evidence that Mrs K.’s mother was dependent on her.20. On 1 July 2009 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K.21. On 7 July 2009 the Novomyrgorod prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against Mrs K.22. On 24 July 2009 the Oleksandrivka Court remitted the case against Mrs K. for further investigation, holding that the applicant had not been informed about the completion of the investigation until 3 July 2009 and had therefore not been given enough time to study the case file. It also held that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. had contravened the law.23. On 13 November 2009 the Novomyrgorod prosecutor quashed the decision of 1 July 2009 not to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. Subsequently the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K.24. On 21 December 2009 the new round of pre-trial investigation in the case against Mrs K. was completed and another bill of indictment was issued by the Novomyrgorod prosecutor.25. On 29 March 2010 the Oleksandrivka Court remitted the case against Mrs K. for further investigation, holding in particular that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. had been premature, since his role in the incident had not been sufficiently clarified.26. On 13 July 2010 the Novomyrgorod prosecutor quashed the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. On 26 May 2011 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K.27. On 20 December 2011 the Znamyanka Court convicted Mrs K. of inflicting bodily harm of medium severity on the applicant, sentencing her to restriction of liberty for two years, suspended for a one-year probationary period. The court found that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. in connection with the same incident had been correct. Mrs K., the prosecutor and the applicant appealed.28. On 6 March 2012 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and discontinued the criminal proceedings against Mrs K. as time-barred.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION29. The applicant complained that the investigation in her case had been ineffective and the proceedings excessively lengthy. She initially invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.30. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the above complaints fall to be examined under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention (see Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 51, 31 July 2012, and İbrahim Demirtaş v. Turkey, no. 25018/10, §§ 19 and 20, 28 October 2014). Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”A. Admissibility31. The Court notes that the application 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. The parties’ submissions32. In her reply to the observations of the Government, the applicant submitted that the investigation breached the procedural requirements of Article 3. She submitted that there had been delay in the institution of criminal proceedings: the investigator had initially refused to institute criminal proceedings and then the investigation had been repeatedly suspended. As a result of the delay, Mrs K. had been convicted belatedly. According to the applicant, the overruling of various procedural decisions by the superior prosecutor also demonstrated that the investigation had been ineffective.33.

Outcome for Article 3: violation