FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF NAYYEM v. UKRAINE(Application no. 21174/23)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG18 December 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Nayyem 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 application (no. 21174/23) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 July 2023 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Mustafa-Masi Nayyem (“the applicant”), who was born in 1981, lives in Kyiv and was represented by Ms Y. Naumenko and Ms Y. Kovalenko, lawyers practising in Kyiv;the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1.  The application concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into his ill-treatment by private individuals.2.  The applicant is a politician. At the material time he was a member of the Ukrainian Parliament.3.  According to the applicant and the findings of the domestic pre-trial investigation, on 30 April 2018, during a dispute following a traffic accident, the applicant was beaten and struck several times in the head by a group of private individuals (A., M.-S., M.-A. and U.). M.-A. allegedly punched him in the jaw, while U. held his arms and A. and M.-S. surrounded them, preventing the applicant from leaving. M.-S. also allegedly punched the applicant twice in the head. Subsequently, while the applicant was chasing M.-A., U. allegedly grabbed the applicant by the neck, threw him to the ground and hit him several times. As a result, the applicant sustained a fractured jaw, a closed-head injury, a concussion, and bruises. On the same day a criminal investigation was initiated into the offences of hooliganism[1] and inflicting bodily injuries on the applicant. Subsequently, A., M.-S., and U. were charged with hooliganism, while M.-A. faced charges of hooliganism and causing bodily harm to the applicant. On 1 May 2018 the applicant underwent jaw surgery.4.  During the investigation the police questioned the applicant and witnesses, examined video‑recordings of the events from CCTV[2] cameras and conducted a reconstruction of the incident. On 7 March 2019 a forensic medical examination established that the injuries sustained by the applicant were of moderate severity.5.  On 30 June 2020 the trial court acquitted A., M.-S. and U. of hooliganism and dismissed a civil claim which had been lodged by the applicant. The Kyiv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal on 17 November 2021 and 20 March 2023 respectively.6.  The courts found that the prosecution had failed to provide documents proving that the investigators and prosecutors were authorised to conduct the criminal proceedings and, therefore, to disclose the pre-trial investigation evidence and bring charges against the defendants. As a result, all evidence gathered during the pre-trial stage was deemed inadmissible, and the courts held that A., M.-S., and U. should not have acquired the status of accused persons.7.  Among the inadmissible evidence were the video-recordings from CCTV cameras, video analysis reports indicating that the injuries had been inflicted by the defendants, and the results of the forensic examination detailing the severity of the applicant’s injuries and indicating that they could have been caused by the events captured in the recordings. Relying on the testimony of the applicant, A., M.-S., U., and certain witnesses during the trial, the courts concluded that the actions of A., M.-S., and U. had not constituted hooliganism, that it had been the applicant who had provoked and escalated the dispute, and that there had been no admissible evidence other than the applicant’s statements that his injuries had been caused by the defendants who were on trial.8.  M.-A., who had fled Ukraine following the incident, was declared wanted and the criminal proceedings against him on the charges of hooliganism and inflicting bodily injuries on the applicant were suspended. A request by the authorities for his extradition from Azerbaijan was rejected. In September 2019, shortly after he had returned to Ukraine and presented himself to the investigator, a preventive measure in the form of house arrest was imposed on him. On 20 April 2021 the criminal proceedings were discontinued on account of the expiry of the limitation period. However, on 11 October 2021 the Kyiv Court of Appeal, in M.-A.’s presence, overturned that decision and remitted the case for a new trial. On 12 December 2022 he was again declared wanted for his failure to appear before the trial court. The criminal proceedings against him are currently suspended. The authorities are unaware of his whereabouts.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT9.  Relying on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the investigation into his ill-treatment by private individuals had been ineffective. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention (see Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 51, 31 July 2012).aDMISSIBILITY10.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded because the treatment in question had not attained the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s assertions. More specifically, he contended that the injuries inflicted on him had been serious and had had a long-term effect on his health.11.  The Court dismisses the Government’s objection because the applicant indeed sustained injuries (a fractured jaw, a closed‑head injury, a concussion and bruises) and underwent surgery (see paragraph 3 above). Accordingly, the Court notes that the treatment in question fell within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see İbrahim Demirtaş v. Turkey, no. 25018/10, § 31, 28 October 2014).12.  The Court further notes that the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.MERITS13.  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into alleged ill‑treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see Chernega and Others v. Ukraine, no. 74768/10, § 158, 18 June 2019, and Karter v. Ukraine, no. 18179/17, § 75, 11 April 2024, with further references). 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 Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 44, 14 November 2013, with further references).14.  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 includes the sanctions imposed at the end of those proceedings. While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and mental integrity to go unpunished, or for serious offences to be punished by excessively light punishments. The important point for the Court to review is, therefore, whether and to what extent the courts, in reaching their conclusion, might be deemed to have submitted the case to careful scrutiny, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place, and the significance of the role it was required to play in preventing violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment, are not undermined (see Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 97, 14 January 2021).15.  The Court is not concerned with allegations of errors or isolated omissions but only significant shortcomings in the proceedings and the relevant decision-making process, namely those that are capable of undermining the authorities’ capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, § 320, 25 June 2020).16.  The Government did not comment on the way in which the case against A., M.-S. and U. was brought before the courts or on the authorities’ failure to prevent M.-A. from absconding and to find him for three years. They submitted, however, that the invalidation of the evidence, including the video-recordings from the CCTV cameras, did not undermine the integrity of the trial, because the court had examined the circumstances of the dispute based on the testimony of the applicant and the defendants. The Court is not convinced by that argument, because the video‑recordings and the reports documenting their content contained objective information regarding the circumstances of the dispute and the manner in which the injuries had been sustained. They were therefore crucial to the consideration of the case, given that the applicant’s and defendants’ testimony was fundamentally at odds.17.  As regards the criminal proceedings against A., M.-S., and U., the Court notes that the authorities acted expeditiously from the very beginning and made an effort to thoroughly investigate the case. However, their failure to ensure that the correct procedure for bringing charges and collecting evidence was in place and complied with undermined the effective prosecution of the alleged offences (see, mutatis mutandis, R.B. v. Estonia, no. 22597/16, §§ 78-104, 22 June 2021).18.  The Court further notes that, following the remittal of M.-A.’s case for a new trial, no preventive measures were taken, which ultimately allowed him to abscond (see paragraph 8 above). The authorities’ failure to act promptly created conditions conducive to that outcome (see, mutatis mutandis, Vyacheslavova and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 39553/16 and 6 others, §§ 403‑05, 13 March 2025).19.  Those considerations are sufficient for the Court to find that there were significant flaws in the domestic authorities’ procedural response to the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. Accordingly, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendants, concludes that the manner in which the criminal-law mechanisms as a whole were implemented in the present case, resulting in the dismissal of the case on procedural grounds, was defective to the point of constituting a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION20.  The applicant claimed 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.21.  The Government contended that this claim was groundless.22.  The Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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.Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 December 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Martina Keller Gilberto Felici Deputy Registrar President  [1] See Zagubnya and Tabachkova v. Ukraine ([Committee], no. 60977/14, § 34, 12 November 2020) for a definition of the offence of “hooliganism”.[2] Closed-circuit television