FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF LUKASHUK v. UKRAINE(Application no. 9079/24)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG22 January 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Lukashuk v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Diana Sârcu, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 13 March 2024.2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. He complained under Article 3 of the Convention that there had been no effective investigation into the ill‑treatment to which he had been subjected by private individuals.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention4.  The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into ill‑treatment inflicted by private parties. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.5.  The Court notes at the outset that the treatment in question fell within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation of alleged ill‑treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003‑XII, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 99, 17 December 2009). The minimum standards of effectiveness laid down by the Court’s case-law include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, mutatis mutandis, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).6.  The procedural requirements of Article 3 go beyond the preliminary investigation stage when the investigation leads to legal action being taken before the national courts: the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of Article 3. This means that the domestic judicial authorities must on no account be prepared to let the physical or psychological suffering inflicted go unpunished. This is essential for maintaining the public’s confidence in, and support for, the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of the authorities’ tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006 XII (extracts)).7.  The Government argued that applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he failed to lodge a civil claim for non-pecuniary damages caused by ineffective investigation. The Court reiterates that the obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to conduct an investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible could be rendered illusory if applicants were required to bring actions leading only to damages (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 234, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). Therefore, the Government’s objection as to non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.8.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the above principles, the Court considers that the authorities, who were empowered to open and conduct a criminal investigation, did not make a genuine attempt to take a prompt and thorough examination of the matter, establish the facts and, if necessary, bring those responsible to account. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.9.  In the leading case of Muta v. Ukraine (no. 37246/06, 31 July 2012) the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the investigations failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table (see, for comparison, Pobokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 30726/14, 6 April 2023).FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIXApplication raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention(ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents)Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Background to the case and domestic proceedingsKey issuesAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]9079/2413/03/2024Artem Mykhaylovych LUKASHUK2002 On 01/03/2019 the applicant, who was 16 years old at the time of the events, was punched in the face by a certain Ch., who was 15 years old. As a result, the applicant sustained a fracture of nasal bones. On 03/03/2019 the applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint. On 14/03/2019 the investigation was launched and on 19/03/2019 a preliminary medical examination was carried out. However, despite the promptness of the investigation at the beginning, it was terminated several times by the investigator’s decisions (on 23/09/2019, 25/12/2019, 27/05/2020 and 27/02/2023), which were subsequently quashed as unsubstantiated by a prosecutor or an investigating judge (on 05/11/2019, 06/02/2020, 23/11/2020 and 27/04/2023). In July 2023 the investigator obtained Ch.’s statement. Finally, on 26/06/2024 the investigation was closed due to the lack of constituent elements of a crime.Groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 45, 14 November 2013), shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 65, 31 July 2012), failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodov v. Ukraine, no. 56697/09, §§ 34-35, 14 November 2013);3,000  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.