CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 6 October 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17964/09 Dmytro Ivanovych CHERNUKHIN against Ukraine lodged on 14 March 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dmytro Ivanovych Chernukhin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Rubizhne. He is represented before the Court by Mr S.   Pustovoytov, a lawyer practising in Severodonetsk. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 7 January 2002 the applicant was beaten up by a group of individuals in a bar in the town of Rubizhne. The applicant identified the assailants and on the same day he complained to the Rubizhne Town Police Department. On 18 January 2002 the Prosecutor of Rubizhne opened an investigation into disorderly conduct by a group under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. Between 2002 and 2008 the investigation was repeatedly suspended. The applicant complained to the supervising authorities, arguing that the investigation had been protracted. In particular, on 20 January 2005, having examined the applicant’s complaint, the Lugansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed as unfounded the decision of 5 April 2004 by which the investigation had been suspended. On 17 June 2007 and 10 July 2008 the Lugansk Regional Police Department informed the applicant that certain police officers had been disciplined for having protracted the investigation. On 31 July 2008 the Lugansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that they had taken measures in order to intensify the investigation. On an unspecified date K. and B. were charged with disorderly conduct and the criminal cases were referred to the Rubizhne Town Court (“the Town Court”) for trial. On 17 September 2008, following the prosecutor’s request, the Town Court closed the criminal case against K. as time-barred. On 5 December 2008 the Town Court closed the criminal case against B. as time-barred. The applicant appealed against the decision of 5 December 2008, arguing, among other things, that B. had been in hiding and that the time-limit had been applied wrongfully. On 30 January and 29 September 2009 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the Town Court’s decision of 5 December 2008. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law can be found in the judgments of Muravskaya v. Ukraine (no. 249/03, § 36, 13 November 2008) and of Padura v. Ukraine (no. 48229/10, §   39, 11 December 2014). COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the investigation and further court proceedings concerning the circumstances of his ill-treatment have not been conducted thoroughly and promptly.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the State complied with its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in the present case?   The Government are invited to provide: (a)     a chronological list of pre-investigative, investigative, and judicial measures taken in respect of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment; (b)     copies of the documents concerning the respective domestic proceedings (including decisions of the investigative authorities suspending criminal proceedings, as well as the decisions of the supervising authorities taken after the review of the above-mentioned decisions).