CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24213/08 Aleksandr Anatolyevich BASENKO against Ukraine lodged on 5 May 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Basenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 February 2002 the applicant was stopped by two transport controllers on the tram for travelling without valid ticket. The applicant argued with them, refused to pay the fine on the spot and demanded to go to the nearest police station and to settle the dispute there. This led to a conflict, which resulted in the applicant’s knee being fractured. The controllers ran away and the applicant called the police who arrived at the scene and questioned him and several witnesses. On 4 March 2002 the police investigator refused to open a criminal case into the injuries inflicted on the applicant. The applicant became aware of this decision only from a letter of the Svyatoshyn District Prosecutor’s Office of 18   December 2002. By the same letter, he was also informed that the criminal proceedings into the incident had been instituted in December 2002 and referred to the Svyatoshyn District Police Department for further investigation. At some later stage the controllers had been identified as Mr   S. and Mr G. On 7 February 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Holosiyivsky District Court of Kyiv against the municipal company “Kyivpastrans” seeking damages for the unlawful actions of its employees. On 15 November 2005 the court rejected his claim on the ground that he did not prove that he had been injured by the employees of the defendant during performance of their professional duties. On 24 January 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. By letter of 7 March 2006, the Svyatoshyn District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that criminal proceedings had been instituted against Mr S. and Mr G. and that the proceedings were suspended as the accused were hiding. On 30 November 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, upheld the decisions of 15 November 2005 and 24   January 2006. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that he was seriously injured and the investigation into this incident has been very long and ineffective. He refers to Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 2, 7 § 2 and 13 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 that due to a lack of outcome of the criminal proceedings he was denied access to the civil courts to claim compensation for damage caused to him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Is the treatment of which he complains in the present case imputable to the State, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was he able to obtain compensation for the damages caused by the ill-treatment complained of?