FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MAKARUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 35052/19 and 4 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG22 January 2026    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Makaruk and Others 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 18 December 2025,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 table.2.  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 LAW        JOINDER 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 2 of the Convention5.  The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 2 of the Convention.6.  The Court notes at the outset that the present case falls to be examined from the perspective of the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation were summarised in Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC] (no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015). In particular, once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the procedural requirement of Article 2 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness of the investigation, the involvement of the deceased person’s family, and the independence of the investigation. These elements are inter‑related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself (ibid., § 225).7.  Moreover, this is not an obligation of results to be achieved but of means to be employed. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the claimant’s account of events. However, it should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).8.  In applications nos. 35871/19 and 31921/24 the Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had failed to lodge a civil claim for non-pecuniary damages caused by ineffective investigation. The Court reiterates that the obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to conduct an investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible could be rendered illusory if applicants were required to bring actions leading only to damages (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 234, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). Therefore, the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.9.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the principles mentioned above, the Court considers that the investigation was marked by various shortcomings, which had undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the circumstances of the life-threatening accident, and who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.10.  In the leading cases of Kachurka v. Ukraine (no. 4737/06, 15 September 2011), Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine (no. 42752/08, 17 October 2013), and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151/10, 5 November 2015), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.11.  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 case the investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 2 of the Convention.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Basyuk, cited above, §§ 74-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,     Decides to join the applications;     Declares the applications admissible;     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents;     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 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 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention(ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without 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/household(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]      35052/1919/06/2019  and  35871/1919/06/2019Household:Vitaliy Vasylyovych MAKARUK1976  Dmytro Vitaliyovych MAKARUK2001 Mamchenko Igor OleksandrovychLutskOn 18/07/2009 the first applicant, Vitaliy Vasylyovych Makaruk, while driving a car, got into a traffic accident with a bus. As a result, he and the second applicant (his son, Dmytro Vitaliyovych Makaruk, 8-year-old at the material time) both sustained moderate bodily injuries. On 27/07/2009 the police instituted criminal proceedings. In October 2009 the first applicant was indicted for a breach of traffic rules. The Lutsk District Court of Volyn Region has repeatedly returned the bill of indictment to a prosecutor for correcting deficiencies, such as the lack of thoroughness, and absence of expert examination on some crucial points and since the input data used in forensic examinations had not corresponded to the witnesses’ testimony. On 30/01/2015, after another round of the additional investigation, the police indicted both the first applicant and the bus driver for a breach of traffic rules; the first applicant was also given the status of a victim. On 24/02/2015 the first applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings against the employer of the bus driver and the insurance company seeking damages.On 14/08/2018 the Lutsk District Court of the Volyn Region acquitted the first applicant, convicted the bus driver of breach of traffic rules but released him from serving the sentence because of his mental illness, and partly allowed the first applicant’s civil claim. On 05/12/2018 the Volyn Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 14/08/2018 acquitting the first applicant and remitted the case to the first-instance court for new examination concerning the bus driver and the civil claims. On 14/03/2019 the District Court suspended the criminal proceedings until recovery of the bus driver as he had been paralysed after having a heart attack. The decision was upheld after appellate and cassation review, with the final decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 06/06/2019. Since then, the proceedings have been pending but suspended.Repeated remittals of the case for additional investigation owing to the insufficiency of the measures taken by the investigators (Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011), no genuine attempt by the investigating authorities to carry out a thorough investigation (Lyubov Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 75726/01, §§ 76-80, 25 November 2010; Yuriy Slyusar v. Ukraine, no. 39797/05, §§ 84-88, 17 January 2013), investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine, no. 42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013)6,000250    23170/2424/07/2024Inna Anatoliyivna VYAZOVA1973 Kulakov Oleg VolodymyrovychDniproOn 23/07/2014 the applicant’s father was hit by a car; criminal proceedings were instituted on the same day. On 28/07/2014 he succumbed to his injuries. On 19/12/2014 the applicant lodged a civil claim within the initiated criminal proceedings. On 02/04/2015 the local court convicted the driver as charged. On 04/06/2015 a court of appeal returned the case for a fresh examination to the trial court. The case was later returned for a fresh examination on several occasions because of the trial being incomplete and there was a need to carry out additional investigative actions (the investigative experiment with the driver was carried out on 16/05/2018, on 27/06/2018 the trial court ordered a new forensic examination). On 21/01/2024 the driver died and on 05/04/2024 the Industrialnyy Circuit Court of Dnipro terminated the proceedings due to the suspect’s death. Insufficient measures during the preliminary stage of the investigation (Kachurka v. Ukraine, no. 4737/06, § 52,15 September 2011), unusually high number of repeated forensic examinations (Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, § 68, 5 November 2015), numerous shortcomings in collection of evidence (Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, § 67, 5 November 2015), lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case (Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013)6,000250   31921/2414/10/2024Oksana Valeriyivna BONDAR1981 Illyashenko Maryna OleksandrivnaKyivOn 12/07/2020 the applicant’s son died from injuries sustained in an aggressive assault. Criminal proceedings under Article 115 of the Criminal Code (premeditated murder) were opened the following day. On 17/07/2020 five individuals were officially notified of a suspicion.Subsequently, a number of forensic examinations were conducted leading to the finding that the death was caused by acute coronary heart disease resulting in cardiopulmonary insufficiency, exacerbated by bronchial asthma and alcohol intoxication. While emotional and psychological stress during the infliction of bodily harm certainly had an impact, these factors were not decisive in causing the applicant’s son’s death. Consequently, on 10/12/2020 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of evidence of a crime. Nevertheless, on 18/01/2021, an indictment on charges of committing offences under Article 296 § 4 of the Criminal Code was drafted and submitted for trial.On 21/01/2022 the 1st instance court terminated the proceedings as time barred. On 02/02/2023 that decision was overturned upon the prosecutor’s appeal and the case was referred to the first instance court for consideration.In parallel, on 26/01/2022 another set of criminal proceedings under Articles 121 and 127 of the Criminal Code (intentional grievous bodily harm, torture) was initiated. A forensic examination of 16/09/2022 ordered withing this set of criminal proceedings established a direct link between the beatings suffered by the applicant’s son and his death. Consequently, the decision of 10/12/2020 to terminate the first set of criminal proceedings was cancelled.On 20 and 21/10/2023 the same five individuals were officially notified of a suspicion of having committed an offence under Articles 121 and 127 of the Criminal Code. On 22/02/2024 an indictment was drafted and submitted for trial.On 07/05/2024 two sets of criminal proceedings were merged. The consideration of the case by the first instance court is ongoing.Lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case (Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013)6,000250   35883/2418/11/2024Petro Oleksiyovych DIDUR1966   According to the applicant, on 19/12/2013 his fellow villager, U., approached the applicant’s car at a bus stop, knocked on the driver’s window and, when the applicant lowered it, shot him twice in the head from close range with a rubber-bullet handgun. The applicant sustained injuries to his chin, ear and the back of his head, lost blood and allegedly had to eat through a straw for several months. The applicant reported the incident to the police the same day. A forensic medical examination classified the injuries as minor. On 02/04/2014 U. was charged and committed for trial for aggravated disorderly conduct (“hooliganism”) under Article 296 § 4 of the Criminal Code. On 22/04/2014 the applicant lodged a civil claim in criminal proceedings. On 20/04/2015 the Tulchyn District Court and on 06/11/2019 the Nemyriv Local Court of Vinnytsya Region found U. guilty of armed hooliganism, but both verdicts were quashed by the Vinnytsya Court of Appeal on 14/09/2015 and 04/05/2020, respectively, on the same ground: the first-instance court had departed from the indictment and altered the aggravating circumstance of its own motion. On 15/04/2024 the Nemyriv Local Court discontinued the criminal proceedings on account of the expiry of the statutory limitation period and exempted U. from criminal liability; the applicant’s civil claim lodged within the criminal proceedings was left unexamined. The appellate court upheld that decision on 06/06/2024, and on 22/07/2024 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal, finding no grounds for review. Lack of promptness and efficiency of the criminal proceedings (see Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 59-60, 3 March 2011, and Ranđelović and Others v. Montenegro, no. 66641/10, §§ 123-130, 19 September 2017)6,000- [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.