CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 25 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 60692/16 Olga Volodymyrivna GAVRYLYAK against Ukraine lodged on 1 October 2016 communicated on 4 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment between 2014 and 2016. She submits that her nephew and other persons had beaten and harassed her, forcing her to transfer her ownership rights to a newly inherited house to her nephew. In particular, according to the forensic medical examination act of 25   March 2015, the applicant suffered from a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, abrasions on her face, right arm and leg, numerous scratch marks and abrasions on her left arm and bruises on her both arms, all inflicted with a blunt object on 4 August 2014. On 18 June 2018 a Deputy Prosecutor of Lviv Region issued a resolution admitting that the investigation of the applicant’s criminal case concerning the infliction of bodily injuries had been ineffective and that it was decided that the pre-trial investigation would be assured by another department of the prosecutor’s office. The applicant complained under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention about the ineffective investigation into her ill-treatment. Her complaint falls to be examined under Articles 3 (procedural limb) or 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaint that she had been ill-treated by private individuals (see Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia , no.   32704/04, §§ 98-100, 17   December   2009; Biser   Kostov v.   Bulgaria , no.   32662/06, §§   75-79, 10   January   2012; and Aleksandr   Nikonenko v.   Ukraine , no.   54755/08, §§   43-44, 14 November 2013)?   2. Alternatively, do the facts of the present case disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under that provision in order to ensure   protection of the applicant’s rights from breaches by private individuals (see, for instance, Sandra   Janković v.   Croatia , no.   38478/05, §§   44-45, 5   March   2009; Isaković Vidović v. Serbia , no. 41694/07, §§ 58-59, 1 July 2014)?