CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } Published on 19 December 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51984/17 Oleg Volodymyrovych MYTSYK and Petro Ivanovych KRAVCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 4 July 2017 communicated on 29 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are practising advocates. They allege that on 26 May 2015 law-enforcement officials ill-treated them opposing their presence at a house search in spite of a legal assistance contract having been signed with a family member of the house owner. Following the applicants’ complaint to the prosecution authorities introduced the next day, an investigation into the incident was launched. In early June 2015 the applicants were examined by a forensic medical expert who documented numerous bruises on their arms possibly sustained as alleged. The investigation was discontinued and resumed on many occasions. The applicant’s complaint against such most recent discontinuation, of 20   July 2021, is apparently pending before a local court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants submitted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on 26 May 2015?   2.     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?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Golovan v. Ukraine , no. 41716/06, §§   55-66, 5 July 2012)?