FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PALYVODA v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 20901/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 March 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Palyvoda 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. 20901/19) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 April 2019 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Dmytro Leonidovych Palyvoda (“the applicant”), who was born in 1981 and died in 2023, and was represented by Ms M. 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, and then by their acting Agent Ms I. Koval, from the Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
 
Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the police and the ineffectiveness of the related domestic investigation. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 2. In the late evening of 19 March 2018 three police patrol officers were dispatched to an apartment building in Kryvyi Rih in response to a public nuisance report. During the ensuing arrest of one of the residents, an altercation broke out. Upon hearing the noise, the applicant, who at the time had a disability and used a walking aid, went out of his nearby apartment into a stairwell and approached the officers to enquire about what was happening. The subsequent events leading to the applicant’s injuries are contested by the parties. 3. The applicant stated that, after he had attempted to speak with the officers, one of them had kicked him in the leg and pushed him on the shoulder, as a result of which he had fallen on the floor of the stairwell. As it had been dark, he could not identify the person who had attacked him. The police officers stated that the applicant, who had appeared to be intoxicated, had attempted to prevent the arrest of his neighbour, had blocked the officers’ passage and had eventually fallen on the floor on his own, without any force used. 4. In the early hours of 20 March 2018, an ambulance was called. The paramedics examined the applicant, who informed them that he had been beaten by the police. The paramedics recorded injuries on the applicant’s right leg. Later the same day, the applicant, who had initially refused to be hospitalised, was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with injuries to both of his legs: a fracture on the right thigh and a contusion and hemarthrosis on the left kneecap (later diagnosed as a fracture on the left shin). The applicant underwent leg surgery and received inpatient treatment until 10 April 2018. 5. Following a complaint lodged by the applicant, on 22 March 2018 the Kryvyi Rih prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation into charges of alleged abuse of power by police officers. Since the newly established State Bureau of Investigation (“the SBI”), which was authorised to investigate police misconduct, was not yet operational, the applicant’s case was assigned to the investigative unit of the Kryvyi Rih police department. After the SBI began its activities in November 2018, the applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to have his case transferred to it. 6. During the police investigation, a number of investigative steps were taken, including interviews of the applicant and two of the three patrol officers involved. Several eyewitnesses were also interviewed: two of them corroborated the applicant’s account of events, testifying that a police officer had kicked him, and one testified that the applicant’s fall had been accidental. In addition, the investigator examined the footage from one of the two body cameras worn by the patrol officers at the scene. 7. According to the investigator’s report, the video footage showed that, during the conflict between the police and the residents of the building, the applicant had been speaking to a female police officer and holding her arm as she had been walking downstairs. At some point another officer had ordered the applicant to return to his apartment, had taken the applicant by his elbow and had pushed him, causing him to hit a wall and fall. The applicant had gotten up on his own and had returned to his apartment. 8. Two forensic medical examinations were also carried out. The experts concluded, in particular, that the applicant’s injuries had resulted from blunt force trauma to two distinct areas of his legs, possibly on the day indicated by the applicant, and that both of these injuries were unlikely to have been sustained from a fall to the floor, but might have been sustained from a fall on the staircase. 9. On 22 September 2019 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of the constituent elements of an offence in the police officers’ actions and the expiry of the statutory time-limit for pre-trial investigations.[1] Although on 21 December 2019 a district court in Kryvyi Rih overturned the above-mentioned decision, on 14 January 2020 the investigator again terminated the proceedings on the same grounds.

Outcome for Article 3: violation