FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF YAKOVIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 23361/14 and 6 others –see appended list)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG16 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yakovin and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 12 October 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 table2.  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 violent 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 cases 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 a violation 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 cases the investigation 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.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pobokin v. Ukraine, no. 30726/14, 6 April 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants.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;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList 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 birth Representative’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]   23361/1412/03/2014Sergiy Volodymyrovych YAKOVIN1964 BidnyyBorys BorysovychLvivOn 22/03/2012 the applicant had a fight with a private person, C. As a result, the applicant sustained injuries of medium severity, including a broken leg.After several refusals to open criminal proceedings, on 12/12/2012 the Galytskyy District Police Station of Lviv launched a criminal investigation into the incident where the applicant was granted victim status. The investigation was discontinued and resumed on numerous occasions, and disciplinary sanctions for delays were imposed on the investigator in charge. It was noted in the decisions on remittal of the case for further investigation that the investigator failed to establish the circumstances of the incident and to take the necessary investigative steps in that regard.On 07/06/2018 the criminal proceedings were again terminated due to the lack of evidence of any crime. On 30/10/2018 an investigating judge of the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv set aside the above decision as premature and resumed the investigation. The parties did not inform the Court about subsequent developments in the case.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. Ukraine, no. 56697/09,§§ 34-35, 14 November 2013); groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenkov. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 45, 14 November 2013); overall protracted character of the investigation and court proceedings (Mutav. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012); repeated groundless refusal to institute criminal proceedings / to register the complaint in the Unified Register of Criminal Proceedings (Skorokhodovv. Ukraine, no. 56697/09,§ 34, 14 November 2013);  repeated remittal of the case for additional investigation (Muta v. Ukraine,no. 37246/06, § 64, 31 July 2012); shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06,§ 65, 31 July 2012).3,000250   25886/1628/04/2016Sergiy Volodymyrovych ANDRUSENKO1978 Kulchytska Andriana BogdanivnaKyivOn 27/08/2014 the applicant was knocked down on a street and beaten up by a group of individuals, who demanded the keys to his flat and his address. On 28/08/2014 criminal proceedings were instituted into hooliganism and infliction of light bodily injuries.On 30 September 2014 the Prymorskyy Local Court of Odesa allowed the applicant’s complaint as to the investigator’s inactivity, ordering the investigator to institute criminal proceedings into grievous bodily harm and hooliganism. On 04/11/2014 criminal proceedings against the investigator were instituted for his failure to comply with the latter judgment. The forensic medical examination of the applicant was conducted between 09/10/2014 and 06/11/2014, concluding that he had concussion and multiple bruises on his body. Since the investigator classified those as falling within the category of light bodily injuries and criminal investigation in this respect had already been instituted, on 27/12/2014 the Odesa Prosecutor’s Office terminated the criminal proceedings against the investigator. Subsequently the deficiencies of the investigation in the applicant’s case were acknowledged in the conclusion of the internal inquiry of 26/03/2015. Disciplinary penalties were imposed on the investigators because of their inactivity. The applicant lodged numerous complaints before the domestic authorities referring to lengthy and ineffective investigation. He received replies that the investigator had been given instructions to conduct an effective investigation. The applicant was informed that on 08/02/2016 the forensic examination had been carried out. The case file does not contain any documents on the investigative actions performed after 2016. The applicant submitted that as of March 2019 the criminal investigation was still ongoing. There is no information as to thesubsequent developments in the case. Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. Ukraine, no. 56697/09,§§ 34-35, 14 November 2013); groundless and significant periods of inactivity (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 65, 31 July 2012); 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).3,000250   54788/1622/09/2017Lyudmyla Ivanivna YUVCHENKO1970   On 02/03/2016 as a result of a quarrel, the applicant and her neighbour inflicted bodily injuries upon each other using a stick and a piece of slate. On 03/03/2016 criminal proceedings were instituted against both the applicant and her neighbour. On 22/03/2016 the two criminal proceedings were merged. On 22/06/2016 the Zhytomyr National Police Department sent a letter to the investigator, noting that the investigation was marked with shortcomings and that the primary investigative actions were not carried out. On 10/08/2016 the investigator disjoined the proceedings. Several medical examinations had been carried out reaching controversial conclusions as to the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the applicant (light or medium bodily injuries). On several occasions the investigative authorities terminated proceeding in the case against the applicant’s neighbour for want of proof of a crime (decisions of 27/02/2017, 16/06/2017, 14/09/2017 and 12/02/2018). The local court quashed all of the respective decisions as premature and each time remitted the case for further investigation. The court noted that the investigator’s decision as to the lack of all the elements of the crime rested on the controversial conclusions (i.e. the investigator concluded that (i) there were no evidence corroborating that the applicant’s neighbour had inflicted bodily injuries upon her and (ii) that the applicant’s neighbour had acted in self-defence). Furthermore, the court admitted that the investigator had not been duly exercising his functions in the applicant’s case. On 12/07/2018 the prosecutor quashed the decision of the investigator of 04/07/2018 to terminate the proceedings reasoning that the abovementioned controversial conclusions had not been resolved, as well that the gravity of the injuries sustained by the applicant had not been established conclusively. There is no information as to the subsequent developments in the case.Groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenkov. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 45, 14 November 2013); failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. 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).3,000-   63896/1718/08/2017Svyatoslav Igorovych GRIMZIN1999 Tyshchenko Andriy ViktorovychKharkivOn 31/07/2012 the applicant, at the material time 12 years old, was beaten by a private person, who inflicted upon him bodily injuries of medium level of severity. On the same day the police instituted criminal investigation into the incident. On 20/09/2013 the criminal proceedings were terminated on the ground of lack of the evidence of a crime. On 03/07/2014 the prosecutor quashed the latter decision and remitted the case for further investigation, given the obviously contradictory assessment of evidence. On 02/06/2017 the Dzerzhynskyy Local Court of Kharkiv found the inactivity of the investigator unlawful and ordered him to take necessary measures in the applicant’s case. On 20/06/2018 the prosecutor quashed the decision of the investigator of 09/10/2017 to terminate the proceedings reasoning that not all the required investigative actions had been carried out (some witnesses were not questioned, the circumstances of the incident were not fully established, the forensic examination was not complete). The applicant submitted that as of November 2018 the criminal investigation was still ongoing. The parties failed to submit information as to the subsequent developments in the case.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. Ukraine, no. 56697/09,§§ 34-35, 14 November 2013); groundless and significant periods of inactivity (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 65, 31 July 2012); groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenkov. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 45, 14 November 2013); shortcomings recognised by the national authorities themselves (Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 65, 31 July 2012).3,000-   2487/1830/12/2017Sergey Nikolayevich BOBROV1976 Medvedev Sergey SergeyevichLysychanskAccording to the applicant, on 03/05/2014 M. stabbed him several times. On the same day the police instituted criminal proceedings and the protocol of the inspection of the scene was drawn up, the victim and witnesses were questioned. A medical examination, conducted between 8 and 18/05/2014, concluded that the applicant had wounds in the abdominal area and on his shoulders. A forensic medical examination, conducted on26-29/09/2016, concluded that the applicant’s injuries were caused by a sharp cutting tool. On 28/09/2016 the investigator decided to perform additional investigative measures such as questioning witnesses and assessing the victim’s medical documentation. On 07/10/2016 an investigative experiment was conducted. In a letter of 21/04/2017, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the length of the pre-trial investigation was excessive and instructions were given to the investigator. In April-May 2017 additional interrogations were carried out. On 17/05/2017M. was notified as a suspect. On 19/05/2017 the bill of indictment was drawn up. On 25/10/2017 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the local court, finding Mr M. guilty of inflicting light bodily injuries upon the applicant. The court exempted Mr M. from criminal liability, given that the statutory limitation period had expired.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. Ukraine, no. 56697/09,§§ 34-35, 14 November 2013); groundless and significant periods of inactivity (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).3,000250   7291/1831/01/2018Gennadiy Vasylyovych BARZIKOFF1957   On 13/12/2014 the applicant was assaulted and robbed when attending a workshop in Kyiv. He was hospitalised and operated on.The same day police instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of brigandage; the applicant was granted victim status.In December 2014 the investigators inspected the crime scene and studied video recordings, questioned the applicant and other victims and witnesses, conducted forensic portrait and photo examinations, got access to telephone communication of the suspects, and conducted visual surveillance of one of them. However, a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries was not performed.In December 2014 – January 2015 five alleged perpetrators were notified of suspicion of brigandage. In January 2015 they were declared wanted.The police by its letter of 08/04/2016 acknowledged that the investigation in the applicant’s case was incomplete.On 21/10/2016 the criminal proceedings were suspended due to the search for suspects.On 09/11/2017 the investigating judge rejected the applicant’s claim regarding non-observance of reasonable terms of the investigation.According to the latest update in July 2018, the decision of 21/10/2016 on suspension of the criminal proceedings is still in force.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. Ukraine, no. 56697/09,§§ 34-35, 14 November 2013); groundless and significant periods of inactivity (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).3,000-   38538/1830/07/2018Mark Andriyovych SHAPRUNOV1988   On 29/05/2016 the applicant visited a restaurant near his residence, where he was approached by two strangers, a man and a woman, who initiated a conversation with him. After leaving the restaurant, the applicant was subjected to a violent assault and robbery by unidentified individuals near the entrance to his home. The attackers stole his golden jewellery, which had an estimated value of UAH 108,262 (approximately EUR 3,383 at that time), and the incident resulted in bodily injuries to the applicant.On the same day a criminal investigation was instituted, and the crime scene was examined.On 06/06/2016 at the applicant’s request the investigator viewed the surveillance video from the restaurant. However, there was a40-minute gap in the recording, corresponding to the period when the applicant was present in the restaurant. The applicant requested the investigator to secure the complete video recording.On 10/08/2016 during a briefing at the prosecutor’s office, it was acknowledged that the criminal investigation was not thorough, and the investigator was instructed to expedite the process. It was observed that the investigator had only conducted five interrogations, including two with the applicant. He had also failed to look for the potential locations where the stolen items could have been sold.On 18/08/2016 the applicant filed a civil claim against the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, seeking compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the crime and its ineffective investigation. On 31/10/2017 a local court dismissed the claim as ill‑founded, primarily citing the ongoing pre-trial investigation as the reason for the decision. This decision was upheld on appeal and then by the Supreme Court.Throughout the investigation, the applicant submitted multiple appeals, citing the inactivity and omissions committed by the investigation authorities. Specifically, he highlighted that he had never been asked to describe the stolen jewellery.In November 2016 the video recording was finally seized, but the video of the date of the incident was no longer available. The last investigative measure was conducted on 25/05/2017, and as of now, the criminal proceedings are still pending.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodovv. 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).3,000-  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.