CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 1 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40311/16 Bogdan Petrovych MUKHA against Ukraine lodged on 22 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE During his contract military service, on 6 November 2014, the applicant (a private) had a conflict with his superior, officer D. (the deputy commander of the military unit), as a result of which the former sustained a nose fracture, facial soft tissue bruising and cerebral concussion. Following the internal investigation into the matter, both the applicant and officer D. were reprimanded. The applicant brought administrative proceedings against the military unit claiming that there had been no effective investigation into his ill-treatment complaint. On 13   August 2015 the Volynskyy Circuit Administrative Court rejected that claim. On 27   October 2015 the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal quashed that decision and found for the applicant. It held that the investigation had been superficial and that liability for impoliteness towards one’s superior (imputable to the applicant) could not be regarded commensurate to liability for infliction of injuries as serious as a nose fracture. However, on 22   December 2015 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first-instance court’s decision. It appears that meanwhile criminal investigation was initiated. Its progress and outcome are unknown. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains, in substance, that there was no effective domestic investigation into his ill ‑ treatment by officer D. This complaint falls to be examined under Article   3 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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?