CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDEE3DDCD { width:97.28pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC7F8CD85 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s304E8EB8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC1CB89D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s7FAB3B57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.95pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sDFF87DD { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4AC9B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 30 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9113/18 Sergiy Mykolayovych RYBIY against Ukraine and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern allegations of ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities and the lack of effective domestic investigation in respect of the aforementioned allegations. The applicants invoke Article   3 of the Convention in respect of the above complaints. Some applicants additionally invoke Article 13. Three applicants also raise further complaints. More specifically, Mr   O.O.   Shepelev (application no.   18540/18) complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has been deprived of requisite medical assistance in detention for his injuries sustained immediately before his arrest and for his chronic illnesses. Mr   Y.V.   Neymak (application no.   33147/18) complains that Article   6   §§   1 and 3(d) was breached in the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the domestic courts allegedly arbitrarily refused to admit as evidence expert reports obtained by the defence with a view to challenging the findings in the reports ordered by the prosecution and performed by the experts who, like the person accused by the applicant of having committed the crime wrongly attributed to him, were affiliated with the local police. The courts also refused to hear the applicant’s experts by videoconference. Mr   S.V.   Lyalikov (application no.   53693/18) complains that the criminal proceedings against him were inordinately lengthy.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Questions in respect of all applications 1.     Regard being had to the applicant’s account of his encounter with law ‑ enforcement officers on the date(s) indicated in the Appendix, has the applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no.   23893/03, §§   169-182, 15   May   2012), was the investigation of the applicant’s relevant complaints by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention? Additional question in respect of the application lodged by Mr   O.O.   Shepelev (no.   18540/18) Did the circumstances and manner of the treatment by the prison authorities of the applicant’s injuries sustained in 2018 and his chronic ailments amount to inhuman treatment? In particular, regard being had to the applicant’s health situation, can it be said that the unavailability of more comprehensive and swift therapeutic measures amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (see, for example, Logvinenko v.   Ukraine,   no.   13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010)? Additional question in respect of the application lodged by Mr   Y.V.   Neymak (no.   33147/18) Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? The parties are invited, in particular, to comment on the observance of the principle of equality of arms in that the courts refused to admit as evidence expert reports proposed by the applicant in support of his allegation that he had been the passenger rather than the driver of the car, which had become involved in a traffic accident, and to hear his experts via a videoconference (see, for example, Matytsina v. Russia , no.   58428/10, §§   168-69 and 207-08, 27   March   2014) Additional question in respect of the application lodged by Mr   S.V.   Lyalikov (no.   53693/18) Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applications   Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by Alleged ill-treatment Other relevant facts 9113/18 Rybiy v.   Ukraine 07/02/2018 Sergiy Mykolayovych RYBIY 1989 Dnipro S.P.   Bulkach 23/03/2012 Officers of the Dnipropetrovsk regional organised crime police Multiple bruises and abrasions   18540/18 Shepelev v.   Ukraine 19/04/2018 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SHEPELEV 1970 Kyiv D.S.   Anikin 07-08/02/2018 Military prosecutor Sh., and other unidentified law-enforcement officers Fractures (nose bones, jaw); broken tooth; multiple bruises, haemorrhages, abrasions (face, limbs) Following his arrest on 08/02/2018, the applicant was placed and still remains in custody in a temporary detention facility designed for short-term incarceration only and having no medical unit. While basic mostly palliative treatment had been made available to the applicant for his injuries sustained on 07 ‑ 08/02/2018, there was no appropriate strategic therapeutic follow-up either in respect of those injuries or as regards the applicant’s chronic diseases (i.e., hypertension, cardiac insufficiency, osteochondrosis, ischemic heart disease, encephalopathy, anxiety and asthenic states, and multiple sclerosis). As a result, on numerous occasions an ambulance had to be called to treat urgent situations and the applicant’s general health has significantly deteriorated. 33147/18 Neymak v. Ukraine 30/10/2018   Yevgen Vyacheslavovych NEYMAK 1992 Letychiv O.Y.   Sapozhnikova At 3   a.m. on 02/08/2015 investigators Y.K. and S.G. of the Khmelnytskyy regional police arrested the applicant in a hospital where he was on in-patient treatment (multiple injuries suffered in a grave traffic accident several hours before arrest) and drove him around for some six hours, using his vulnerable state to force him to acknowledge that he had been the driver of the car that had caused the accident and to denounce his statement that he had been the passenger of that car, which had been driven by M., a local off-duty policeman On 30/02/2017 Letychiv District Court found that the applicant had been the car driver guilty of having caused the traffic accident. It dismissed his allegation that he had been the passenger of the car driven by M. Relying, in particular, on several expert reports ordered by the investigation, the court refused to admit alternative expert reports proposed by the applicant or to organise a videoconference to examine the applicant’s experts. The applicant’s appeals in which he alleged, in particular, that the investigation’s experts were biased as they, like M., were affiliated with the local police, were dismissed at two higher instances (final decision: Supreme Court, 08/04/2021). 38885/18 Bilyy v. Ukraine 26/07/2018 Ivan Ivanovych BILYY 1984 Pidgorodne M.O.   Sosyedko 15/03/2014 Officers of the Dnipropetrovskyy district police in the Dnipropetrovskyy region Abrasions and bruises (face, torso, and limbs); contused wounds (lips)   33155/18 Dolynskyy v.   Ukraine 06/07/2018 Denys Valentynovcyh DOLYNSKYY 1984 Kyiv 19/05/2016 Officers of the Zhytomyr police Multiple bruises (shoulder blade area, lumbar area, stomach, abdomen, and both legs)   53693/18 Lyalikov v.   Ukraine 31/10/2018 Sergiy Volodymyrovych LYALIKOV 1961 Kyiv 05-06/02/2006 Officers of the Shevchenkivskyy district police in Kyiv Blood stains on self-incriminating statements concerning offences of which the applicant was subsequently acquitted Criminal proceedings against the applicant instituted on 14/02/2006 lasted until 03/10/2018 at three levels of jurisdiction