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. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention. More specifically, they asserted that the investigating authorities had launched criminal investigations into the applicants’ relatives’ deaths in a timely manner; they had acted diligently and promptly; the investigating authorities had done everything possible to investigate the circumstances of the cases; the length of the investigations had been objectively justified by the necessity to carry out a significant number of investigative actions; the applicants had been involved in the proceedings; and the independence of the investigation had not been called into question by the applicants.14.  The applicants did not accept the Government’s assertions and maintained their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. They contended that the investigating authorities had not conducted effective investigations into the deaths of their relatives.     The Court’s assessment15. The Court notes at the outset that the present case falls to be examined from the perspective of the State’s procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in the context of healthcare. The relevant general principles were summarised in Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal ([GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017).16. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the domestic proceedings were marked by various shortcomings which undermined the ability of the authorities to establish the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the applicants’ next of kin and to identify who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.17.  In the leading cases of Arskaya v. Ukraine (no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013) and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03, 16 January 2014), the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.18.  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 merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for illustrative purposes, Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee] (no. 65663/12, 28 July 2016) and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee] (no. 63126/13, 4 November 2021), the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic proceedings failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.19.  There has therefore been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.    OTHER COMPLAINTS20.  The applicants in application no. 55046/16 also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the omissions in the medical treatment of P. amounted to inhuman treatment.21.  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION22.  The applicant in application no. 19581/18 did not submit any claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.23.  The applicants in applications nos. 55046/16, 32999/17 and 15510/19 claimed various amounts as indicated in the appended table. The Government argued that those claims were exorbitant and unsubstantiated.24. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, § 104, and Tretyakova, cited above, § 43), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.25. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,     Decides to join the applications;     Declares that Ms Tetyana Viktorivna Ignasheva, the daughter of the applicant in application no. 32999/17, Mr Viktor Vasylyovych Gorbatyy, has standing to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her late father’s stead;     Declares the complaints under Article 2 of the Convention raised by the fifth applicant in application no. 55046/16, Mr Yaroslav Fedorovych Petkanych, inadmissible and the remainder of the complaints under Article 2 of the Convention admissible;     Holds that these complaints disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;     Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint under Article 3 of the Convention raised by the applicants in application no. 55046/16;     Holds  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;  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on those 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 12 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina Keller Gilberto Felici Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 2 of the Convention(ineffective domestic proceedings in respect of deaths in the context of healthcare)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationBackground to the case and domestic proceedingsKey issues   55046/1607/09/2016Fedir Fedorovych PETKANYCH1980 Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych LAVRIV1952 Zhanna Fedorivna PETKANYCH2005 Mariya Vasylivna PETKANYCH1959 Yaroslav Fedorovych PETKANYCH1981  self-representation by Fedir Fedorovych PETKANYCHThe application was lodged by the late P.’s father, husband, daughter and mother-in-law. Circumstances of the incident On 19 July 2005 P., a member of the applicants’ family, was admitted to an infectious diseases hospital in Zakarpattya Region with symptoms of acute respiratory viral infection and intoxication syndrome. She was diagnosed with a combined disorder of pleurisy and pneumonia and received treatment for that illness. As the treatment had proved ineffective, on 26 July 2005 she was transferred to the Uzhhorod City Hospital, where the doctors suspected that she was in fact suffering from another illness, namely meningitis, and adjusted the medical treatment accordingly. On 10 August 2005 P. developed severe haemorrhagic meningoencephalitis, which resulted in a coma and, subsequently, her death. Criminal investigation On 15 August 2005 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the doctors who had provided medical treatment to P. On 19 September 2005 a criminal investigation was opened. On 3 February 2006 forensic medical experts from the Zakarpattya forensic expert institution identified serious shortcomings in the medical assessment and treatment of P. In an additional opinion of 2 August 2007, the medical experts noted that P. had been examined by numerous medical practitioners, which made it impossible to identify one specific doctor responsible for the alleged mistakes.On 2 April 2008 only T. (the coordinating doctor) was charged with the offence of medical negligence.On 22 January 2009 a court ordered an additional forensic medical examination by the Main Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations at the Ministry of Health. On 1 September 2009 the medical experts concluded that there had been no negligence in P.’s medical treatment and no causal link between the treatment and her death.On 12 March 2010 T. died. Her relatives requested that the trial be continued. On 16 July 2010 the Uzhhorod City Court acquitted T. On 14 December 2010 that judgment was quashed on appeal on the grounds that the evidence (witnesses’ statements) had not been properly examined. On 3 December 2012 the Uzhhorod City Court again acquitted T. On 9 October 2013 that judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for fresh examination by the first-instance court.On 19 June 2015 the trial court ordered another forensic medical examination by the Main Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations at the Ministry of Health and the proceedings were suspended. On 22 December 2017 the trial court received the results of that examination.As of 3 May 2019, the case was still pending before the first-instance court. Civil claims In 2008 the first and second applicants lodged civil claims within the criminal proceedings, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage from the hospital, which was involved as a civil respondent. On 26 February 2014 the third and fourth applicants joined the proceedings as victims. Other proceedings On 23 August 2005 an expert commission of doctors from Zakarpattya Region was appointed to investigate the applicants’ complaint concerning the medical treatment of P. which had led to her death. The commission concluded that P. had received proper medical treatment. Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021);Remittals of the case in the light of the shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya, cited above, § 72, and Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, §§ 74-75);Failure to establish the essential facts of the case and possible errors committed in the course of medical care (see Ioniță v. Romania, no. 81270/12, § 83, 10 January 2017; Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 159, 18 July 2017; and Lukashenko v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 33944/13, § 30, 11 September 2025).Just satisfactionApplicants’ claims for just satisfactionCourt’s awardNon-pecuniary damage: the first applicant claimed 37,132 euros (EUR); the second applicant claimed EUR 37,948; the third applicant claimed EUR 50,000; the fourth applicant claimed EUR 3,856. Pecuniary damage: the first applicant claimed EUR 2,907 and EUR 110 per month for treatment for diabetes; the second applicant claimed EUR 2,156 and EUR 20 per month for treatment for hypertension; the third applicant claimed EUR 55,568; the fourth applicant claimed EUR 4,936. Costs and expenses: the first applicant claimed a reasonable amount for representing all the applicants before the domestic courts and before the Court and EUR 15 for postal expenses; the second applicant claimed EUR 494 for legal expenses at the domestic level. Non-pecuniary damage:EUR 6,000 jointly plus any tax chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts.   32999/1727/04/2017Nina Pavlivna GORBATA1961 Viktor Vasylyovych GORBATYY1957 The latter died on 28 March 2018, buthis daughter, Tetyana Viktorivna Ignasheva, 1981, pursues the application in her late father’s steadBogdan Vasylyovych FOKIYChernivtsiCircumstances of the incidentAt about 11.15 p.m. on 1 August 2010 the applicants’ daughter, O., was examined at home by an ambulance doctor, who transported her to the emergency hospital. The duty doctor refused to admit O. on the grounds that the hospital did not cover the area of her residence. O. was then taken to City Hospital no. 3. Shortly after her arrival (at about 12.05 a.m. on 2 August 2010), her condition seriously deteriorated; she lost consciousness and subsequently died despite resuscitation attempts. According to the medical report of 2 August 2010, O. died of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack, cardiogenic shock). Disciplinary proceedingsIn August 2010 the medical department of the Chernivtsi State Administration conducted an internal inquiry. The internal medical commission reprimanded the emergency doctors for inadequate organisation of O.’s admission to hospital but did not identify any defects in the diagnosis or treatment that had caused her death. Criminal investigationIn August 2010 a pre-investigation inquiry was conducted, during which the applicants and medical staff were questioned. On 19 August 2010 the local prosecutor’s office refused to launch a criminal investigation. That decision was quashed on 26 August 2010 as unfounded.On 25 August 2010 a medical examination of the body confirmed that O. had died from a heart attack. It also recorded injuries and bruises attributable to resuscitation attempts.On 14 September 2010 the regional police initiated criminal proceedings concerning the alleged failure of the medical staff to provide adequate medical aid. Between 12 November 2010 and 3 June 2011, a forensic medical examination was conducted. The experts concluded that O.’s death could have been prevented if she had sought adequate medical treatment and undergone the appropriate diagnostic measures sooner, and it had not been caused by the treatment administered on 1-2 August 2010.On 28 February 2011 the local prosecutor acknowledged delays in the investigation. On 30 November 2011 and on 20 July 2012 the proceedings were terminated for lack of evidence of a crime. Both decisions were quashed. On 28 March 2013 the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal noted diagnostic errors, criticised the repeated termination of the proceedings as unfounded and pointed out that instructions from the supervising prosecutor had been ignored.On 10 April 2013 the case was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. In the autumn of 2013 cross-questioning of the applicants and doctors was carried out and the second applicant (the father) was granted victim status. In November 2013 an expert report, commissioned at the applicants’ request, established that O. had not been administered any drugs before her death.In 2014 the investigating authorities attempted to obtain O.’s medical documentation from the hospitals, but it had apparently been lost, preventing further forensic assessment. No investigative actions were recorded between 2015 and 2019. On 6 September 2016 and on 19 April 2017 the applicants were informed that the investigation was ongoing. On 13 November 2019 the supervising authority again ordered the investigators to conduct an effective investigation.On 7 April 2020 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of evidence. On 19 June 2020 the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi quashed that decision and remitted the case for further investigation, criticising the repeated refusals to investigate and the authorities’ failure to comply with previous instructions (issued in 2012 and 2013). On 26 June 2020 the supervising authority again instructed the investigators to carry out an effective investigation. Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021); Remittals of the case in the light of the shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya, cited above, § 72, and Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, §§ 74-75); Loss of medical documentation or other omissions undermining the principle of a thorough examination of the case (see Arskaya, cited above, § 72; Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 162, 18 July 2017; and Tretyakova, cited above, § 32).Just satisfactionApplicants’ claims for just satisfactionCourt’s awardNon-pecuniary damage: 100,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants. Costs and expenses: EUR 105 for postal and translation expenses; EUR 3,963 for legal costs before the domestic courts and before the Court, to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicants’ representative.  Non-pecuniary damage:EUR 6,000 jointly Costs and expenses:EUR 250 to be paid directly into the bank account of Mr Bogdan Vasylyovych Fokiy (see, for example, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 288, 15 December 2016) plus any tax chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts.   19581/1813/04/2018Tetyana VolodymyrivnaKRAVETS1962Mykhaylo Yosypovych BORDYUKChervonogradCircumstances of the incident On 9 October 2013 the applicant’s husband, M., died at the Chervonograd local hospital from acute gastrointestinal bleeding caused by advanced chronic duodenal ulcer. Although he had received numerous inpatient treatments at the local hospital since 2010 and undergone two cancer-related surgeries at the regional oncology centre, the chronic ulcer was not diagnosed until late August 2013. His last consultation with treating doctor K. had occurred just days before his emergency hospitalisation and death. Investigation by the healthcare authorities In March 2014 two internal inquiries were conducted by commissions at the Ministry of Health and the regional health authorities. Both investigations identified multiple shortcomings in M.’s treatment at both the local hospital and the oncology centre, most notably the failure to conduct ulcer diagnostics despite clear indications. Deficiencies in emergency procedures and record-keeping were also noted. Both inquiries led to the conclusion that M.’s death could have been prevented with proper diagnosis and treatment. Criminal investigation On 1 November 2013 and on 14 February 2014 criminal investigations were launched into alleged medical negligence at the oncology centre and the local hospital respectively and were merged on 3 March 2014.In November 2014 the principal investigative office acknowledged, on the applicant’s complaints, that the investigation had not been thorough. Two investigators were reprimanded and the proceedings were ordered to be expedited. Nonetheless, the first forensic medical examination was not commissioned until June 2015 and did not begin until November 2015 on account of delays in securing payment and necessary documents. The report, completed on 4 October 2016, confirmed shortcomings in the treatment but could not determine the ulcer’s progression.Three further expert examinations prolonged the investigation. An expert report of 7 May 2018, delivered after a seven-month delay, was inconclusive. The final expert report of 22 March 2019 noted serious breaches of medical protocols at the local hospital, including the failure to admit M. for urgent hospitalisation after his previous consultation and the failure to transfer him to intensive care. According to the report, his death had likely been preventable with appropriate treatment. It held the treating doctor, K., and the deputy head of surgery responsible.On 6 August 2019 K. was charged with medical negligence. The investigation in respect of other medical staff was discontinued on 23 July 2020 but resumed on 30 September 2020 after the applicant successfully challenged the relevant decision in the courts. On 12 May 2021 K. was convicted as charged but released from criminal responsibility since the case had become time barred. No other charges were brought. The investigation remains pending with the prosecutor’s office.Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021); Remittals of the case in the light of the shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya, cited above, § 72, and Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, §§ 74-75);Failure to establish the essential facts of the case and possible errors committed in the course of medical care (see Arskaya, cited above, §§ 69-70 and 73, and Ioniță v. Romania, no. 81270/12, § 83, 10 January 2017; and Lukashenko v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 33944/13, § 30, 11 September 2025); Investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (see Marchuk, cited above, § 35); Impact of delay on accountability (sanctions avoided – see Marchuk, cited above, § 37, and Zhukov and Zhukova v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 60191/16 and foll., § 22, 3 July 2025).   15510/1911/03/2019Andriy Igorovych ANDRIYENKO1966Sergiy Valentynovych KOZHARINKremenchykCircumstances of the incident On 2 September 2016 the applicant’s wife died in the Kremenchuk municipal hospital while undergoing inpatient treatment for a cerebrovascular accident. An autopsy was carried out on the next day. Criminal investigation On 14 September 2016 the police launched an investigation into the failure to provide medical aid which had resulted in the applicant’s wife’s death.A forensic medical examination was ordered on 13 December 2016. In March 2017, however, the Poltava Regional Forensic Bureau returned the file as incomplete for the purposes of the expert assessment.Throughout 2017 the applicant repeatedly applied to the prosecution authorities, requesting the institution of investigative measures and complaining about the police investigator’s inaction. He was regularly informed that the investigation was ongoing, that measures were being taken and that supervising authorities had issued instructions to the police investigator.In 2017 the police investigator attempted to collect the relevant medical documents and staff duty instructions required for the forensic examination. In summer 2017 the police investigator requested the Poltava Regional Health Department to carry out an internal inquiry into the medical staff’s actions. That inquiry, completed in autumn 2017, found no breaches in the treatment provided to the applicant’s wife.On 26 October 2017 criminal proceedings were opened against the police investigator for dereliction of duty. After several remittals, those proceedings were discontinued on 30 November 2020 for lack of constituent elements of a crime.On 22 November 2017 a forensic medical examination was ordered again and assigned to the Poltava Regional Forensic Bureau. On 22 January 2018 the examination was completed and the Poltava Regional Forensic Bureau concluded that there had been no breaches in hospitalisation or treatment and that the applicant’s wife had died from an advanced, irreversible blood disease, which had been diagnosed in 2006.On 16 May 2018, on the applicant’s request, another forensic medical examination was ordered from the Main Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations at the Ministry of Health. On account of a heavy workload, it was scheduled to be finalised in 2020. However, as of December 2020 both the forensic examination and the criminal investigation were still pending. Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021); Remittals of the case in the light of the shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya, cited above, § 72, and Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, §§ 74-75); Loss of medical documentation or other omissions undermining the principle of a thorough examination of the case (see Arskaya, cited above, § 72; Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 162, 18 July 2017; and Tretyakova, cited above, § 32); Investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (see Marchuk, cited above, § 35). Just satisfactionApplicant’s claims for just satisfactionCourt’s awardNon-pecuniary damage: 5,000 euros (EUR). Costs and expenses: EUR 25 for postal and translation expenses; EUR 598 for legal costs. Non-pecuniary damage:EUR 5,000 Costs and expenses:EUR 250 plus any tax chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts.