CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 September 2010 and 14 March 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no 49785/06 Irina Valeryevna GORKOVLYUK and Stanislav Yulyevich KAGANOVSKIY against Ukraine lodged on 1 December 2006   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     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), did the domestic investigation of the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was there an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference lawful for the purpose of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1? Did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants within the meaning of that Article?”