FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PYLYPCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 59255/14 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG14 December 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Pylypchuk and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 23 November 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. II. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 57293/16 5.  The Court notes that application no. 57293/16 was lodged by Ms Galina Nikolayevna Kondratyeva complaining about inadequate investigation into the beating of her son by private persons, while her son died shortly after the incident in a traffic accident.6.  Although the respondent State did not raise any objection as to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae, the Court considers of its own motion that this issue calls for examination (see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, ECHR 2009).7.  The Court did not exclude the possibility that it might recognise locus standi in the context of complaints under Article 3 for applicants who complained of treatment concerning their late relative exclusively, where such applicants “show either a strong moral interest, besides the mere pecuniary interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or other compelling reasons, such as an important general interest which requires their case to be examined”. Since the victim of the ill-treatment died just after the incident, it was the applicant who has been seeking an effective investigation into her son’s ill-treatment for several years at domestic level. In the light of all the foregoing considerations and in the particular circumstances of this case, it is proposed to accept the applicant’s locus standi in respect of her complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, §§ 106-114, 11 February 2016).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention8.  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.9.  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).10.  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)).11.  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.12.  In the leading case of Muta v. Ukraine (no. 37246/06, 31 July 2012) the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.13.  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.14.  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 CONVENTION15.  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 and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Decides that Ms Galina Nikolayevna Kondratyeva, the mother of the late son in application no. 57293/16, has locus standi in the proceedings;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;(c)  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList 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 ofState 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]   59255/1418/08/2014Yuriy Arkadiyovych PYLYPCHUK1959   According to the applicant, on 07/05/2007 a certain L. punched him in the head causing a closed brain trauma.On 20/07/2007 the police instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of infliction of grievous bodily harm; on 05/09/2007 the applicant was granted victim status.On 18/01/2010 the alleged attack on the applicant was reclassified to a lesser offence of infliction of bodily harm of medium severity and a decision to charge L. as an accused was made.On 25/06/2010 the criminal case was referred to the first-instance court.On 05/09/2011 the first-instance court remitted the criminal case against L. for further investigation. The court concluded that the investigation had failed to establish all the factual circumstances of the crime and L.’s intent to commit it.On 29/02/2012 the criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the lack of evidence of the crime in L.’s actions; on 07/04/2012 the prosecutor quashed that decision because the necessary investigative actions had not been conducted.On 24/09/2012 the criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the lack of evidence of the crime; on 29/04/2013 the first-instance court quashed that decision due to incomplete investigation and reliance of the investigator on selective evidence and remitted the case for further investigation.On 07/06/2013 the territorial jurisdiction of the case was changed.On 30/08/2013 the criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the lack of evidence of the crime; on 20/11/2013 the investigating judge quashed that decision due to incomplete investigation and remitted the case for further investigation.On 29/10/2014 the investigator refused to recognise the applicant as a victim and discontinued the criminal proceedings due to the lack of evidence of a crime; on 14/11/2014 and 17/11/2014 the investigation judge quashed the above decisions due to incomplete investigation and remitted the case for further investigation.On 09/02/2017 the criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the lack of evidence of the crime; on 24/04/2017 the appellate court quashed that decision due to incomplete investigation and reliance of the investigator on selective evidence, and remitted the case for further investigation.The parties failed to inform the Court about further developments of the case.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); 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); repeated remittal of the case for additional investigation (Mutav. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 64, 31 July 2012).3,000   57293/1620/09/2016Galina Nikolayevna KONDRATYEVA1952   On 03/12/2007 the applicant’s son was beaten by private persons in a restaurant, causing him bodily injuries. After the incident the applicant’s son went home and then together with his brother returned to the restaurant, intending to take revenge on his offenders. While pursuing the offenders by car, he crashed into a tree and then died on 07/12/2007. The criminal investigation was instituted on 16/01/2008 into the infliction of bodily injuries to the applicant’s son by unidentified persons. The investigatory authorities terminated criminal investigation on multiple occasions on the ground of lack of all the elements of a crime. The respective decisions were challenged by the applicant before prosecutors and domestic courts, which, in turn, repeatedly quashed them on the ground of failure to secure the evidence concerning the incident, undermining its ability to establish the circumstances of the incident. Namely, the Tsentralno-Miskyy local court of Kryvyy-Rih in its decision of 27/07/2012 noted that the witnesses’ statements were not properly checked and no steps had been taken in order to establish the whereabouts of one of the alleged perpetrators. Referring to flaws in the investigation, on 20/07/2013 the local court again quashed the investigator’s decision to terminate the proceedings, it was suggested that a substantial number of investigatory measures had not been taken and the case had not been examined comprehensively. In its letter dated 25/04/2014 the prosecutor informed that on 17/03/2014 the investigator’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings had been quashed, investigation of the incident was transferred to another investigative department because of the ineffective investigation by the previous investigative body. On 30/07/2016 an officer of the Kryvyy Rih Police Department terminated the criminal proceedings due to the lack of all the elements of the crime, however, noting that it was not possible to establish the whereabouts of one of the alleged perpetrators of the applicant’s son.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); 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).3,000   39759/1804/08/2018Ivan Gavrylovych SOROKOVYY1957 Malichenko Dmytro VasylyovychPoltavaOn 28/05/2014 the applicant, an emergency doctor, was allegedly suffocated by having his head pressed to the table and suffered a facial bruise during a confrontation with M., a deputy chief of the hospital, who later admitted to giving the applicant a shove in self-defence. The incident was partially witnessed by staff members K. and I. and was also captured on video surveillance. A criminal investigation was initiated the day after the incident, and the relevant forensic report classified the injury as minor. The video recordings were not seized in due time, and thus were lost. Subsequently, the criminal proceedings were discontinued and re-opened upon the applicant’s complaint on several occasions. Specifically, on 30/11/2015 the Poltava Court of Appeal set aside the decision terminating the criminal proceedings and reproached the police for their failure (i) to establish the facts of the incident; (ii) to consider K. and I.’s testimony (iii) to identify and question the persons who had examined the video recordings shortly after the incident, in particular, police officers who had arrived on call. On 14/06/2019 the Kyivskyy Local Court of Poltava again set aside the decision terminating the criminal proceedings, noting that M.’s procedural status had not been formalised as he had not been questioned either as a witness or as a suspect. It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.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).3,000 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.