FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PALYVODA v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 20901/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 March 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Palyvoda v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 María Elósegui, President,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 20901/19) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 April 2019 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Dmytro Leonidovych Palyvoda (“the applicant”), who was born in 1981 and died in 2023, and was represented by Ms M. Zakharova, a lawyer practising in Kryvyi Rih;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, and then by their acting Agent Ms I. Koval, from the Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
 
Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1.  The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the police and the ineffectiveness of the related domestic investigation. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
2.  In the late evening of 19 March 2018 three police patrol officers were dispatched to an apartment building in Kryvyi Rih in response to a public nuisance report. During the ensuing arrest of one of the residents, an altercation broke out. Upon hearing the noise, the applicant, who at the time had a disability and used a walking aid, went out of his nearby apartment into a stairwell and approached the officers to enquire about what was happening. The subsequent events leading to the applicant’s injuries are contested by the parties.
3.  The applicant stated that, after he had attempted to speak with the officers, one of them had kicked him in the leg and pushed him on the shoulder, as a result of which he had fallen on the floor of the stairwell. As it had been dark, he could not identify the person who had attacked him. The police officers stated that the applicant, who had appeared to be intoxicated, had attempted to prevent the arrest of his neighbour, had blocked the officers’ passage and had eventually fallen on the floor on his own, without any force used.
4.  In the early hours of 20 March 2018, an ambulance was called. The paramedics examined the applicant, who informed them that he had been beaten by the police. The paramedics recorded injuries on the applicant’s right leg. Later the same day, the applicant, who had initially refused to be hospitalised, was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with injuries to both of his legs: a fracture on the right thigh and a contusion and hemarthrosis on the left kneecap (later diagnosed as a fracture on the left shin). The applicant underwent leg surgery and received inpatient treatment until 10 April 2018.
5.  Following a complaint lodged by the applicant, on 22 March 2018 the Kryvyi Rih prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation into charges of alleged abuse of power by police officers. Since the newly established State Bureau of Investigation (“the SBI”), which was authorised to investigate police misconduct, was not yet operational, the applicant’s case was assigned to the investigative unit of the Kryvyi Rih police department. After the SBI began its activities in November 2018, the applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to have his case transferred to it.
6.  During the police investigation, a number of investigative steps were taken, including interviews of the applicant and two of the three patrol officers involved. Several eyewitnesses were also interviewed: two of them corroborated the applicant’s account of events, testifying that a police officer had kicked him, and one testified that the applicant’s fall had been accidental. In addition, the investigator examined the footage from one of the two body cameras worn by the patrol officers at the scene.
7.  According to the investigator’s report, the video footage showed that, during the conflict between the police and the residents of the building, the applicant had been speaking to a female police officer and holding her arm as she had been walking downstairs. At some point another officer had ordered the applicant to return to his apartment, had taken the applicant by his elbow and had pushed him, causing him to hit a wall and fall. The applicant had gotten up on his own and had returned to his apartment.
8.  Two forensic medical examinations were also carried out. The experts concluded, in particular, that the applicant’s injuries had resulted from blunt force trauma to two distinct areas of his legs, possibly on the day indicated by the applicant, and that both of these injuries were unlikely to have been sustained from a fall to the floor, but might have been sustained from a fall on the staircase.
9.  On 22 September 2019 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of the constituent elements of an offence in the police officers’ actions and the expiry of the statutory time-limit for pre-trial investigations.[1] Although on 21 December 2019 a district court in Kryvyi Rih overturned the above-mentioned decision, on 14 January 2020 the investigator again terminated the proceedings on the same grounds.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT        preliminary issue

10.  The Court notes that, after lodging the present application, the applicant died and that his mother, Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Palyvoda, wished to pursue the proceedings in his stead. The Government did not object.
11.  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court accepts that the applicant’s mother has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in her late son’s stead. However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Mr Dmytro Palyvoda as “the applicant”.
       ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
12.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his allegations in that regard had not been properly investigated. Although he relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers it appropriate to examine his complaints solely under Article 3 (see Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 41, 11 February 2016).
   Admissibility
13.  The Government argued that the applicant’s complaints were premature, as, at the time of lodging the present application, the relevant domestic proceedings had still been ongoing and, therefore, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. The applicant disagreed.
14.  The Court dismisses the Government’s objection, as, in any event, it has lost its rationale upon termination of the relevant criminal proceedings shortly after the applicant had lodged his application with the Court (see Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, §§ 145-49, 7 April 2015). The Court further considers that the applicant’s complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds and must be declared admissible.
   Merits     The parties’ submissions

15.  The applicant maintained his complaint, arguing that he had been ill‑treated by the police. He further asserted that, given that he had had obvious signs of disability, any use of police force against him had been prohibited under domestic law save in exceptional circumstances.[2] Furthermore, the investigation had been inadequate and should not have been carried out by the police whose officers had been implicated in the impugned offence.
16.  The Government disagreed, asserting that, despite the investigator’s best efforts, the exact circumstances under which the applicant had sustained his injuries had not been established. The witnesses’ testimony had been contradictory and the forensic experts’ opinions had been inconclusive. There had also been no grounds for the SBI to investigate the case.
     The Court’s assessment
17.  The relevant general principles have been summarised in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015).
18.  The Court notes at the outset that the applicant’s complaint lodged with the competent domestic authorities together with the medical evidence confirming his injuries constituted an arguable claim of police ill-treatment (see Đurđević v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 86, ECHR 2011 (extracts)). The authorities were thus required to carry out an effective official investigation.
19.  In the Court’s view, that obligation was not met, as the investigation lacked thoroughness. In particular, of the three officers present at the scene, only two were questioned and, of the video footage from the two body cameras worn by the officers, only one was examined. The reasons for not questioning the third officer and for not reviewing the video footage from the second body camera remain unclear.
The authorities also failed to properly follow up on the results of the examination of the police body camera footage. Although the footage indicated that the applicant had been pushed by a patrol officer (see paragraph 7 above), no attempts were made to identify that officer. The authorities also did not assess whether that push complied with the domestic rules governing the use of force by the police (see paragraph 15 above) and whether the applicant’s injuries were consistent with his description of the events (a kick followed by a fall on the floor).
20.  The foregoing shortcomings are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the investigation into the applicant’s claim of ill‑treatment was ineffective. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to additionally examine the applicant’s argument regarding the alleged lack of independence of the investigating authority (see Pihoni v. Albania, no. 74389/13, § 96, 13 February 2018).
21.  As to the substance of the applicant’s allegations, the Court considers that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s injuries were sustained as a result of police ill-treatment, as has been alleged. In particular, it is not possible to conclude – either from the description of the video footage or from the forensic examinations – whether the applicant was indeed kicked on the leg and whether such use of force, even when combined with the subsequent fall, could have caused the applicant’s injuries. This uncertainty stems at least in part from the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation (see Sládková v. the Czech Republic, no. 15741/15, § 89, 10 November 2022).
22.  At the same time, the Court observes that it has not been disputed by the parties that at the time of the incident the applicant had a mobility impairment and used a walking aid (see paragraph 2 above).
Against this background, the Court cannot overlook the domestic investigator’s findings, according to which during the applicant’s conversation with the police officer, another officer had taken the applicant by the elbow and pushed him (see paragraph 7 above). Even considering that at that moment the applicant was holding the officer by the arm and that this encounter took place in the midst of the tumultuous scene in the dark stairwell, the Court does not see how the applicant’s actions, given his evident signs of impaired mobility, could warrant a manoeuvre such as to cause him to strike the wall and fall to the floor (see Archip v. Romania, no. 49608/08, §§ 56-57, 27 September 2011; and contrast with Koutra and Katzaki v. Greece (dec.), no. 459/16, § 49, 7 October 2025). This is even more so given that at the time of the incident, the applicant was outnumbered by three trained police officers. In such circumstances, it is highly doubtful that the applicant presented any threat to public order or that the officer felt any kind of danger when pushing the applicant (see Mîţu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 23524/14, § 34, 30 June 2020).
23.  Having regard to the circumstances above, the Court considers that the degree of force used against the applicant, a person with a disability and visual signs of impaired mobility, which was not strictly necessary with respect to his conduct, violated his human dignity and was therefore contrary to Article 3 (see Gremina v. Russia, no. 17054/08, § 83, 26 May 2020; and contrast with Vasylchuk v. Ukraine, no. 24402/07, § 53, 13 June 2013). As a result, the applicant was subjected to degrading treatment (see Ilievi and Ganchevi v. Bulgaria, nos. 69154/11 and 69163/11, § 56, 8 June 2021).
24.  In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
25.  The applicant’s mother claimed a sum of between 15,000 and 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to her estimate of the medical and rehabilitation expenses incurred as a result of the alleged ill-treatment of her son, and EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
26.  The Government contested those claims.
27.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards the applicant’s mother EUR 10,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares that the applicant’s mother, Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Palyvoda, has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead;
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs;
Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant’s mother, Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Palyvoda, within three months, EUR 10,000 (ten 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;
  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 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
 
 Martina Keller María Elósegui
 Deputy Registrar President

[1] Articles 219 § 1 and 284 § 1 (10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided at the relevant time that any criminal investigation into grave or particularly grave offences had to be terminated if no person was formally notified of suspicion within 18 months from the launch of the investigation.

[2] Pursuant to section 43(5) of the National Police Act, police officers are prohibited from using physical force against individuals who show obvious signs of disability, unless such individuals participate in an armed or group assault or use weapons to resist the police in a manner that endangers the life of officers or other persons, and if such assault or resistance cannot be addressed by other means.