CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 10 December 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23274/14 Galyna Mykolayivna LYSAK against Ukraine lodged on 13 March 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Galyna Mykolayivna Lysak, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in the village of Nova Ukrayinka, Rivne Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr M.S. Glotov, a lawyer practising in Rivne. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 8 February 2013 the applicant called the police to complain that her neighbour had threatened to murder her. Three police officers arrived to handle the incident. When questioned, the neighbour accused the applicant of being inadequate, claiming that she had alcohol and psychiatric problems. The police took the applicant to a hospital in the city of Rivne to test her blood alcohol content. The doctor found that the applicant was sober. The police then took the applicant to a mental hospital located in the same city to undergo a psychiatric examination. The board of psychiatrists found that there were no grounds to hospitalise the applicant. After those procedures had been completed the applicant demanded that the police officers take her back home. That demand was refused and the applicant decided to go with the police officers to the police station. When they arrived, she refused to leave the police car. A police officer allegedly pushed and beat her to make her leave the car but then gave up and went into the police station, leaving the applicant alone in the car. It soon became too cold for the applicant and she entered the police station, where she demanded that an ambulance be called. The ambulance arrived and took the applicant to hospital where she was provided with medical treatment. Bruises on the left buttock and on the fifth finger of the left hand were documented. On 11 February 2013 the applicant requested that the Rivne District Prosecutor’s Office initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of the police officers, stating that they had arbitrarily compelled her to undergo a test for alcohol and a psychiatric examination and had then ill-treated her in the police car. On 11 March 2013 a criminal investigation was opened. On 17 April 2013 the investigator in the case carried out a reconstruction of the events in the course of which the applicant showed how the police officer had pushed and beaten her to force her to get out of the car. On 30 April 2013 a medical expert issued a report stating that the injury on the buttock could have been sustained in various circumstances, including those described by the applicant; it was unlikely that the bruise on the finger had been sustained in the way described by the applicant. On 13 May 2013 the investigator closed the criminal investigation, finding no evidence of criminal actions by the police officers. The applicant challenged that decision before the Rivne District Court. On 10 June 2013 that court quashed the investigator’s decision and ordered a further investigation. The court considered that the investigator had failed to establish the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained her injuries and had not taken the relevant investigative measures in that regard. On 29 July 2013 the medical expert issued an additional report stating that the injury on the buttock could also have been sustained as a result of a medical injection. On the same day the investigator closed the proceedings for the second time owing to a lack of corpus delicti . The investigator noted that the facts of ill ‑ treatment had not been confirmed by any witness and that the medical evidence suggested that the injuries could have been sustained during medical treatment or in other unrelated circumstances. The applicant challenged that decision in court. On 19 September 2013 the Rivne District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the relevant facts had been established properly and that there were no grounds to question the decision. The applicant appealed. On 30 September 2013 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court of 19 September 2013. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that she was arbitrarily subjected to involuntary medical procedures and ill ‑ treated by police officers on 8 February 2013. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation of the incident involving her and the police officers. 3.     The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   3 of the Convention that she was not able to claim compensation for the injuries she sustained. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With respect to the alcohol test and psychiatric examination of 8 February 2013, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected by the police to ill-treatment on 8 February 2013, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the domestic proceedings in the present case comply with the procedural requirements of effective investigation under the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective compensatory remedy for her complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?