FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF TINYK-ZHUK v. UKRAINE(Application no. 6928/25)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG26 February 2026  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Tinyk-Zhuk v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Diana Sârcu, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2026,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 February 2025.2.  The applicant was represented by Mr O.I. Kret, a lawyer practising in Lviv.3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAW        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention5.  The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into ill‑treatment inflicted by private parties. He relied, in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.6.  The Court notes at the outset that the treatment in question fell within the scope of the above Article. 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 case in the light of the above 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 case.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 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.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pobokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 30726/14, 6 April 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,     Declares the application admissible;     Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into ill-treatment inflicted by private parties;     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 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.Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXApplication 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)Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Background 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]6928/2511/02/2025Myron Yevgenyovych TINYK-ZHUK1960 On 26/06/2020 the applicant sustained minor bodily injuries on the street, allegedly having been beaten by M., S., and Ya. On the same day criminal proceedings were initiated upon the fact of inflicting light bodily injuries that led to a short-term health disorder. According to the applicant, no investigative actions were carried despite his numerous requests. On 27/08/2020 and 14/09/2023 the criminal proceedings were terminated because of the lack of evidence of a crime. The resolutions on closure were subsequently quashed by a prosecutor and an investigating judge, criticizing the police for their handling of the case, including their failure to carry out investigate actions and to examine the applicant’s requests. Throughout the course of the investigation, the prosecutors issued instructions to the investigating authorities concerning the conduct of the investigative proceedings. The proceedings are still pending before the investigative authorities.Failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the case thoroughly (Skorokhodov v. Ukraine, no. 56697/09, §§ 34-35, 14 November 2013); Groundless decisions to close or suspend the case (Aleksandr Nikonenko v. 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)3,000250  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.