FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MYRONYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 10853/16 and 2 others –see appended list)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG18 January 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Myronyuk 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 14 December 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 table.2.  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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention5.  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.6.  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).7.  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)).8.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those 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 in the instant case 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 and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pobokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 30726/14, 6 April 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents; Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts 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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIXList of applications 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)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationBackground to the case and domestic proceedingsKey issuesAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   10853/1615/02/2016Vitaliy Mykolayovych MYRONYUK1994 SkrynnykAndriy ValeriyovychKyivOn 28/09/2013 the applicant was assaulted by a group of private individuals. He sustained a fracture of the lower jaw and the left eardrum rupture. On 29/09/2013 the applicant filed a complaint with the police. On 22/11/2013 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of bodily injuries to the applicant.On 18/08/2014 and 01/04/2015 the Kyiv-Svyatoshynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged the inactivity of the investigator in the applicant’s case. On 26/06/2015 the Kyiv-Svyatoshynskyy Local Court acknowledged that no investigative measures had been taken and there had been no progress in the investigation since 12/01/2014. In that regard, the court set a two-month time-limit to finalise the pre-trial investigation.Since the investigator failed to comply with the latter instructions, on 29/01/2016 criminal proceedings were instituted against him.On 24/01/2018, 16/04/2018 and 24/05/2018 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that there was no progress in the case. It appears that the proceedings are currently pending.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodov v. Ukraine,no. 56697/09, §§ 34-35,14 November 2013); groundless and significant periods of inactivity (Mutav. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012); overall protracted character of the investigation and court proceedings (Mutav. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012); shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves(Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012).3,000250   55637/1805/11/2018Dmytro Grygorovych FYSUN1980   On 01/10/2015 the applicant, a police officer on duty, was beaten by a certain U. and other private persons. On the same day criminal proceedings were opened into the incident. On 05/11/2015 a forensic medical examination was conducted, showing that the applicant had a concussion and a hematoma on his left eye.On 11/04/2017, 19/04/2017 and 05/05/2017 a prosecutor acknowledged that the investigation had been marked by delays. He also informed the applicant that it had been established within the investigation that, apart from U., other persons had also been involved in the beating, and investigative actions had been taken to identify them. On 22/05/2017 and 06/06/2017 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of the evidence of the crime. On 06/06/2017 and 14/06/2017, respectively, those termination decisions were quashed as premature due to the failure to conduct all the necessary investigative actions. In particular, according to the decision of 14/06/2017, the investigator did not identify witnesses, did not establish all the circumstances of the offence, did not examine the scene of the incident and surrounding areas to identify the CCTV surveillance cameras from which the video footage could be requested, etc. On 31/10/2017 the applicant was additionally informed that the investigators had to be disciplined for neglecting their duties in his case. On 13/07/2018 U. was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment ontwo years’ probation. According to the applicant, although it was established that other persons had been involved in his beating, no progress has been made to identify them.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodov v. Ukraine,no. 56697/09, §§ 34-35,14 November 2013); shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves (Muta v. Ukraine,no. 37246/06, § 65,31 July 2012); repeated remittal of the case for additional investigation(Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 64, 31 July 2012).3,000-   35581/2107/07/2021Vadym Mykolayovych MUDRENKO1966 KulakovOleg VolodymyrovychDniproOn 10/02/2011 the applicant - a blind person - sustained a serious knife wound to the stomach during a fight with A. at a bus stop. The incident was later reclassified as an accidental bodily injury sustained during the applicant’s fall on A. However, evidence, including the knife, was lost by the police. The appellate court returned the case for retrial seven times due to procedural shortcomings during the pre-trial investigation (repeated failure to establish facts of the case, failure to give the applicant access to the case-file) and proceedings before the trial court (repeated failure to examine evidence of the case, including lost material evidence, repeated lack of reasoning) until the criminal proceedings were ultimately terminated due to the statute of limitations on 27/01/2020, and A. was exempted from liability. On 02/02/2021 the SC upheld this decision.Overall protracted character of the investigation and court proceedings (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012);  shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012); failure to secure the applicant’s right to participate effectively in the investigation (Chernega and Others v. Ukraine,no. 74768/10, § 165-166, 18 June 2019, with further references).3,000250  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.