CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2023

.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 20 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24897/17 Oleg Dmytrovych IVANYUTA and Iryna Volodymyrivna IVANYUTA against Ukraine lodged on 24 March 2017 communicated on 1 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants, inflicted by private security guards using truncheons, tear gas and an electroshock on 3 August 2015, resulting in minor injuries. The applicants further complain about the lack of an effective investigation into the matter and the lack of an effective remedy. The investigation is still pending since 2015. They raise their complaints under Article 3 (substantive limb), Article   6 (ineffective investigation) and Article 13 of the Convention. The Court reclassifies the complaint about an ineffective investigation, raised under Article 6, as falling under Article 3 (procedural limb). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Given that the applicants allegedly suffered from the actions of private security guards, whose activity was under the control of the State and who were empowered to use special equipment (truncheons, teargas and electroshock devices), is the treatment of which the applicants complain in the present case imputable to the State, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention? 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.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?