CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2024

.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 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sE446CB87 { width:102.18%; border-collapse:collapse } .s7DF1C281 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s390CB55C { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD5D0478C { width:25.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s18CE2F9D { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD8247AB7 { width:17.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83C0F899 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD256A34E { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCF442B62 { width:25.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68F9AFD5 { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7075815F { width:17.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 5 February 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 29208/18 Mariya Mykhaylivna KAPRALYOVA and Others against Ukraine lodged on 10 June 2018 communicated on 16 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 11 December 2017 the police allegedly forcibly entered the applicants’ homes, conducted searches, punched the applicants, verbally insulted them referring to their Roma origin, kept some of them outside lightly dressed, and prohibited the second applicant from administrating insulin to the first applicant. The male applicants were handcuffed and brought to a police station. They were released after several hours. The applicants complained to the prosecutors about the incidents on 11   December 2017. A criminal investigation into their complaints was closed several times and resumed following the applicants’ appeals. It is unknown whether the investigation remains pending or was terminated. Before the Court the applicants allege that they were ill-treated by the police (Article 3 of the Convention), that the male applicants were unlawfully detained at the police station for several hours (Article 5 of the Convention) and that their homes were forcibly entered into and searched (Article 8 of the Convention). The applicants also complain, invoking Articles 3 and 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that they were targeted because of their Roma origin. The details as regards the applicants are set out in the appendix.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Has there been a discriminatory difference in treatment in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   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.     Were the applicants nos 3, 4, 5 and 7 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of this provision? Was the applicants’ detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for their homes, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? Has there been a discriminatory difference in treatment in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?       APPENDIX Application no. 29208/18 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth /registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Mariya Mykhaylivna KAPRALYOVA 1960 Ukrainian Boryslav 2. Mariya Vasylivna KAPRALYOVA 1991 Ukrainian Boryslav 3. Stepan Vasylyovych KAPRALYOV 1985 Ukrainian Boryslav 4. Vasyl Vasylyovych KAPRALYOV 1989 Ukrainian Boryslav 5. Sergiy Oleksandrovych DRAGUNOV 1983 Ukrainian Boryslav 6. Nina Petrivna DRAGUNOVA 1983 Ukrainian Boryslav 7. Artur Mykolayovych LATSKO 1985 (deceased in 2018, application pursued by Tetyana Mykolayivna LATSKO) Ukrainian Boryslav 8. Khrystyna Volodymyrivna ANDYBUR 1969 (deceased in 2022, application pursued by Tetyana Mykolayivna LATSKO) Ukrainian Boryslav