FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PETKANYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 55046/16 and 3 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG12 February 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Petkanych and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Gilberto Felici, President, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Vahe Grigoryan, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;the decision to give notice of the applications to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”);the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 22 January 2026,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The present case concerns the allegedly ineffective domestic investigations into medical negligence which had resulted in the deaths of the applicants’ next of kin.2. The relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS3. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. PRELIMINARY ISSUES4. In application no. 32999/17, one of the applicants, Mr Viktor Vasylyovych Gorbatyy, died on 28 March 2018. His daughter, Ms Tetyana Viktorivna Ignasheva, expressed her wish to pursue the application on her late father’s behalf. The Court notes that in various cases, where applicants died in the course of the proceedings, it took into account the wishes of their heirs or close members of their families to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Jama v. Slovenia, no. 48163/08, § 28, 19 July 2012; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 44, 31 July 2012). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Therefore, the Court accepts that Ms Tetyana Viktorivna Ignasheva can pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead.5. In application no. 32999/17, in their observations on the admissibility and merits submitted to the Court, the applicants complained that the medical personnel of the public hospital were responsible for the death of their daughter. This complaint, in terms of a State’s substantive positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, was raised by the applicants for the first time in reply to the Government’s observations. It thus constitutes a new complaint relating to the distinct matter under the provision relied upon and not an elaboration or elucidation of the applicants’ original complaint on which the parties have commented. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate to take it up in the context of the present case (see Bilyavska v. Ukraine, no. 84568/17, § 26, 27 March 2025). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained of ineffective domestic investigations into medical negligence which had resulted in the deaths of their next of kin. In all applications the applicants relied on Article 2 of the Convention. In applications nos. 55046/16 and 19581/18, the applicants additionally relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and in application no. 55046/16 also on Article 3 of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court finds it appropriate to examine the applicants’ allegations under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012). Admissibility7. Application no. 55046/16 was lodged by numerous relatives of the late P., including her father, husband, daughter, mother-in-law (the fourth applicant) and her husband’s brother (the fifth applicant). The Government submitted that the fourth and fifth applicants were not close relatives of the deceased P., so they could not be considered victims of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.8. The applicants disagreed, stating that the fourth and the fifth applicants had shared the same household with P. and the fourth applicant had taken care of a minor child of P.9. The Court notes that, where a violation of the right to life is alleged, the Convention institutions have accepted applications from close relatives of the deceased (see Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 94, 18 December 2008, with further references), including from parents-in-law (see Avsanova and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 62380/12, §§ 31-35, 11 January 2022). Therefore, the relationship of the fourth applicant with P. was sufficient to qualify for victim status under Article 2 of the Convention.10. As concerns the fifth applicant, Mr Yaroslav Fedorovych Petkanych, who is a brother of the husband of late P., the Court finds that the link between P. and the fifth applicant at the time of her death was not sufficient for the latter to be considered a victim of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see Belkıza Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33420/96 and 36206/97, §§ 45‑48, 22 November 2005; Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, §§ 68-72, 8 November 2022).11. The Government also argued that the fourth applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies since she had been recognised as a victim in the criminal proceedings only more than nine years after the incident had occurred. The applicants disagreed, stating that the fourth applicant had duly pursued the criminal proceedings, which were pending. The Court notes that the Government recognised that the fourth applicant had joined the pending criminal proceedings at the national level. Therefore, the Court rejects the Government’s objection.12. The Court concludes that the complaints raised by the fifth applicant in application no. 55046/16 are incompatible ratione personae within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. It further considers that the remainder of the complaints under Article 2 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits     The parties’ submissions13.

Outcome for Article 2: violation