CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s9A9C81EA { width:215.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sDEE01590 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 21 February 2022   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 40009/15 and 40118/15 Roman Vasylyovych KRASNYANCHUK against Ukraine and Vadym Volodymyrovych KOVALYOV against Ukraine lodged on 7 August 2015 communicated on 1 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES On the dates set out in the appended table the applicants were arrested and allegedly ill-treated by the police while taking part in the series of protests in Ukraine between 21   November   2013 and 21   February   2014, commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan” (see Shmorgunov and Others v.   Ukraine , nos.   15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021). They complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the alleged ill-treatment by the police and their failure to provide the applicants with adequate medical assistance for the injuries they thus sustained; under Article   5   §   1 that they were unlawfully and arbitrarily detained by the police on the dates set out in the appended table; under Article 11 that they were prevented from taking part in the protests and thus expressing their political views and that they were ill-treated and detained to that effect; and under Article   13 that no effective official investigation was conducted into their complaints of ill-treatment and arbitrary detention (further details are set out in the appended table below).     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted such a remedy, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Were the applicants subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to their allegations that they were ill-treated by the police (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 359-63, 21 January 2021) ?   4.     Have the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the above complaints, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§ 327-35) ?   5.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§ 459-61)?   6.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§ 490-94) ?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Relevant facts 1. 40009/15 Krasnyanchuk v. Ukraine 07/08/2015 Roman Vasylyovych KRASNYANCHUK 1990 Kyiv Ukrainian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA Kyiv The applicant was arrested by the police on 27 January 2014 in connection with his participation in the protest on 26   January   2014 in Cherkasy; allegedly beaten by the police during the arrest and during his questioning at the police station later on that day; and detained until 14 February 2014 on suspicion of, mainly, mass disorder pursuant to the decision of the Sosnivskyy District Court in Cherkasy of 28 January   2014, which was upheld by the Cherkasy Court of Appeal on 7 February 2014. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated on 20   February 2014. Following his application to the prosecutors, supported by the relevant medical evidence, on 24   February   2014 an official investigation was launched regarding his alleged ill-treatment and allegedly arbitrary detention. Most of the related proceedings are still ongoing. 2. 40118/15 Kovalyov v. Ukraine 07/08/2015 Vadym Volodymyrovych KOVALYOV 1992 Gnivan Ukrainian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA Kyiv The applicant was arrested by the police on 20 January 2014 in connection with his participation in the protests on 19 January 2014 in Kyiv; allegedly beaten by the police during the arrest; and detained on suspicion of, mainly, mass disorder (pursuant to the order of the police of 20 January 2014) until his release on 22 January 2014. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated on 21 February 2014. Following his complaints to the prosecutors, supported by the relevant medical evidence, on 5 February 2014 an official investigation was launched regarding his alleged ill-treatment and allegedly arbitrary detention. Most of the related proceedings are still ongoing.