FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF REMEZ v. UKRAINE(Application no. 25395/19)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG12 March 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Remez v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Vahe Grigoryan, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 25395/19) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 June 2019 by a Ukrainian national, Ms Anastasiya Viktorovna Gaybadulova, on behalf of her minor daughter, Ms Sofiya Andriyivna Remez (“the applicant”), a Ukrainian national, who was born in 2014 and lives in Komyshany;the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Marharyta Sokorenko;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2026,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1.  The case concerns an issue of effectiveness of an investigation into ill‑treatment of the applicant, a minor, by her father during his unsuccessful attempt to kidnap her. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.2.  On 8 June 2017 the applicant, who was two years and eight months old at the relevant time, was walking on a suburban street of Kherson with her grandmother when her father, a former husband of her mother, grabbed her from the hands of her grandmother and pushed her into a car parked nearby. Bystanders intervened and stopped the attempted kidnapping.3.  On the same day the applicant’s mother complained of the incident to the Korabelnyi District Police Department of Kherson (“the police”), which immediately ordered the forensic medical examination of the applicant.4.  On 8 June 2017 the applicant was examined by a paediatrician, who diagnosed the applicant with abrasions and haematomas of the upper limbs and torso.5.  On 9 June 2017 a forensic medical doctor examined the applicant’s injuries (abrasions and haematomas on her left and right forearms and a bruise on the left abdomen beneath the costal arch) and concluded that (i) they had been minor and (ii) they could not have been obtained as a result of a fall from the applicant’s height.6.  On 9 June 2017 the police opened criminal case no. 12017230020002105 into infliction of minor bodily injuries under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.7.  On 30 June 2017 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence.8.  On 10 October 2017 the Kherson City Court quashed the latter decision for lack of reasoning and for failure to take any procedural action other than ordering the forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries on 8 June 2017.9.  On 19 December 2017, 17 May, 30 July and 27 November 2018 the applicant’s mother lodged applications with the police, asking to have certain procedural actions performed. She complained on 16 January, 6 June, 16 August and 17 December 2018 to the Kherson City Court of inactivity on the part of the police, whereupon the court ordered the police to examine the above-mentioned applications.10.  On 25 December 2017 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence.11.  On 5 April 2018 the Kherson City Court quashed the above‑mentioned decision for procedural irregularities, in particular for failure of the police to send their decision to close the proceedings to the applicant (represented by her mother) or to submit it to the court.12.  On 16 November and 28 December 2018 the Kherson Regional Police Department wrote to the applicant’s mother, acknowledging the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the criminal case and informing her of the dismissal of investigator B. for his failure to perform his duties and of the fact that investigator K. was assigned to carry out the investigation of the criminal case. The new investigator was given instructions on the procedural actions to be taken as set out in a letter from the prosecutor’s office of 23 February 2018 and was ordered to accelerate the investigation.13.  On 8 January 2019 the applicant’s mother lodged another application with the police, asking to have procedural actions in the criminal case performed, including that of questioning her as a victim, questioning the witnesses to the event and informing her of the results of the investigation.14.  On 12 February 2019 the Kherson City Court ordered the police to examine the above-mentioned application of 8 January 2019.15.  On 13 February 2019 the police rejected her application on the grounds that the applicant was not a party to the criminal proceedings.16.  On 27 March 2019 the Kherson City Court overturned the above‑mentioned refusal to examine the application of 8 January 2019 and found the refusal to perform certain procedural actions unlawful.17.  On 8 September 2021 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT         Scope of the case18.  In the applicant’s submissions of 4 August 2025, made in reply to the Court’s invitation to submit her just satisfaction claim, the applicant’s mother raised a general complaint of her and the applicant’s ill-treatment inflicted by her former husband, which apparently occurred in February 2017.19.  The Court notes that this new, belated complaint does not constitute an elaboration or elucidation of the applicant’s original complaint on which the parties have commented. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to take up this matter in the context of the present case (see Sili v. Ukraine, no. 42903/14, § 38, 8 July 2021).       ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION20.  The applicant complained under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into her ill-treatment had been lengthy and ineffective. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaint at issue falls to be examined under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 55, ECHR 2015).21.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, specifically that she had failed to lodge a civil claim with the national courts, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. They referred to cases nos. 751/9683/21, 585/724/19, 522/10157/20 and 607/80203/18, in which non-pecuniary damages for ineffective pre-trial investigation in criminal cases had been awarded. They further argued that the criminal case file had been destroyed while Kherson had been under Russian occupation between 1 March and 11 November 2022. They relied, nevertheless, on the documents provided by the applicant and asked the Court to declare the case inadmissible.22.  The applicant maintained her complaint but contested the existence of any effective remedy against the ineffectiveness of the investigation, arguing that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been interpreted in many different ways, rendering the prospects of that remedy unforeseeable.23.  The Court reiterates that the Contracting Parties’ obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible in cases of assault could be rendered illusory if, in respect of complaints under those Articles, an applicant were required to bring an action leading only to an award of damages (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 234, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). Without having examined the accessibility and foreseeability of the remedy cited by the Government, the Court finds that it cannot afford redress for the applicant’s complaint of ineffective or lengthy investigation into ill-treatment (compare R.B. v. Estonia, no. 22597/16, § 65, 22 June 2021). Therefore, the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.24.  The Court 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.25.  The general principles concerning the requirement of an effective investigation into acts of domestic violence have been summarised in Luca v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 55351/17, § 75, 17 October 2023). 26.  The Court observes that the criminal investigation, despite starting promptly on the day after the event (see paragraph 6 above), soon became dormant without any further procedural action taken by the police (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant’s mother attempted to speed up the investigation when she asked the police to perform certain procedural actions and complained to the Kherson City Court about the police’s inactivity, however, those actions were futile (see paragraphs 9-10 and 13-15 above). Moreover, in 2018 the regional police acknowledged the ineffectiveness of the investigation, however, those findings did not lead to the acceleration of the investigation even after the replacement of the investigator (see paragraphs 12 and 17 above).27. The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to reach a conclusion that the investigation into ill-treatment of the applicant was lengthy and ineffective, in breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION28.  The minor applicant’s representative left to the Court’s discretion the amounts of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to be awarded. She stated, without reference to any specific sum or document, that she had sustained expenses for the applicant’s treatment, including multiple consultations with psychologists, rehabilitation at a hospital and expenses for legal fees. She further stated that she could not provide the Court with any documents in support of the just satisfaction claim, given that the family house and all their belongings, including documents, had been destroyed as a result of shelling by the Russian military.29.  The Government asked the Court to dismiss the minor applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated.30.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.31.  The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred 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 12 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina Keller Andreas Zünd Deputy Registrar President