CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s827CB718 { width:157.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 61080/14 Mykyta Mykolayovych LISIN and Maryna Vadymivna LISINA against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Mārtiņš Mits , President ,   María Elósegui,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   61080/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 September 2014 by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Mykyta Mykolayovych Lisin (“the first applicant”) and Ms Maryna Vadymivna Lisina (“the second applicant”), who were born in 1992 and 1966 respectively, live in Kyiv and were represented, most recently, by Ms   O.   Sapozhnikova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv; the decision to give notice of the first applicant’s complaint under Article   3 (procedural aspect) of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M.   Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of the application, including the second applicant’s complaints, inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the first applicant’s complaint that the authorities had failed to comply with their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with ill-treatment inflicted on him by private individuals. The second applicant alleged a violation of Article 3 on the same grounds. 2.     On 5 December 2013 the first applicant was abducted by several individuals, who held him captive and threatened to kill him. The next day, following a complaint by the first applicant’s mother, the second applicant, the police opened a criminal investigation. On 12   December 2013 the second applicant paid a ransom to the abductors, who then released the first applicant. 3.     In January 2014 the police arrested four individuals who were suspected of having abducted the first applicant. Part of the ransom was found at their place of residence and was eventually returned to the applicants. 4.     By the Act of 27   February 2014 amending the 1996 Law on the Application of Amnesty in Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine) granted “full individual amnesty” to the suspected abductors, among other individuals, in response to “political repression” that had occurred during a series of protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21   February 2014 (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9 and 211, 21 January 2021). In sections 1 and 2 of the 1996 Law on the Application of Amnesty in Ukraine, a “full amnesty” was defined as the full release from criminal responsibility of a person serving a sentence following a conviction. Pursuant to section 3 of that law, the courts were empowered to decide whether or not amnesty should be applied in specific cases. 5.     In March 2014 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office asked the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv, on the basis of the Act of 27   February 2014, to release the suspected abductors from detention and to terminate the criminal proceedings against them. By four decisions of 14   March 2014, the court allowed the prosecutor’s requests in full. 6 .     On different dates between 24   April and 4   June 2014, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed those four decisions, following appeals by the second applicant, and ordered the lower court to re-examine the prosecutor’s requests. 7 .     By four separate decisions delivered on different dates between 11   July and 28   October 2014, the Shevchenkivskyy District Court dismissed the prosecutor’s requests, finding that the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office had failed to pursue and substantiate them during the court hearings. 8 .     According to the parties’ submissions made between May and July 2023, the criminal proceedings involving the four suspects were ongoing. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 9.     Pointing to the fact that the applicants had not informed the Court that the decisions of the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of 14   March 2014 had been quashed or that the criminal proceedings against the four suspects in question had been resumed (see paragraphs 6-8 above), the Government argued that the applicants had abused their right of individual application and that the present application had to be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. 10 .     The applicants contended that they had had no intention of misleading the Court. In their submission, the proceedings regarding the prosecutor’s requests to close the criminal case, which had been conducted after 14   March 2014 (see paragraphs 6-8 above), had not concerned the “very core” of their complaint under Article   3 of the Convention, which was that the investigation of the first applicant’s abduction and ill-treatment, and the prosecution of the suspected offenders, had been hindered by the operation of the Act passed by the Verkhovna Rada , on 27   February 2014 granting “full individual amnesty” to those suspects. The fact that the decisions of the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of 14   March 2014 terminating the criminal proceedings in question on the basis of the Act of 27   February 2014 had been quashed and that the criminal proceedings had been resumed did not, and could not, remedy the situation of which the applicants complained to the Court. 11.     The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known about from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Čaluk and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina   (dec.) [Committee], nos.   3927/15   and 63   others, §§ 18-19, 25 September 2018). 12.     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that, when lodging their application with the Court on 2 September 2014, the applicants complained, under Article   3 of the Convention, that “as a result of the termination of the criminal proceedings and the granting of an amnesty to the individuals implicated in the crimes committed against [the applicants], the State’s positive obligations to conduct an effective investigation of ill-treatment had been breached”. In that connection, they stated that “by the [Shevchenkivskyy District Court’s] decisions of 14   March 2014, the suspects were granted amnesties on the basis of the parliamentary Act of [27   February 2014]”. The applicants did not inform the Court that the decisions of 14   March 2014 had been quashed on different dates between 24 April and 4   June 2014 or that the prosecutor’s request for the termination of the criminal proceedings against one of the suspects had been dismissed on 11   July 2014, all of which had happened prior to the lodging of the application (see paragraphs 6-7 above). Nor did the applicants inform the Court, in their submissions prior to its decision of 31   January 2022 to give notice of the application to the Government, of the fact that by 28   October 2014 the prosecutor’s similar requests for the termination of the criminal proceedings against the three other suspects had also been dismissed and that the proceedings involving all the four suspects had been resumed. The material before the Court demonstrates that the applicants had been aware of those facts at the material time, which they have not denied. 13.     The Court notes that the information which the applicants knew but did not disclose in their submissions to the Court directly concerns the validity of the domestic decisions and, more generally, the authorities’ actions of which they complained under Article   3, that is, the very core of their present complaints. The applicants’ assertions to the contrary are unpersuasive. Rather, they represent pure speculation regarding the question of whether the undisclosed factual information might influence the outcome of their case, with which the Court finds no grounds to agree. Overall, the applicants’ failure to inform the Court of the reality of the situation directly relating to their present complaints cannot be construed as anything but an intention to mislead the Court (compare, among other authorities, Gross , cited above, §   36; B&H PJSC v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 71542/12, 23   March 2023; and Verčimák v. Slovakia [Committee], no. 56978/21, §   13, 28   September 2023). 14.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Government’s objection to the admissibility of the application is well ‑ founded and the present case concerns an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention . The application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 June 2024.     Martina Keller   Mārtiņš Mits   Deputy Registrar   President