CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2025

.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 31 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15484/19 Nataliya Vitaliyivna BOYCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 15 March 2019 communicated on 10 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an issue of domestic violence. Between 2013 and 2016 B.O., the former husband of the applicant inflicted minor bodily injuries on her on seven occasions, which were recorded in medical forensic reports. In this regard, the applicant filed criminal complaints with the police, following which several criminal cases were opened, but subsequently closed for lack of evidence. The Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv quashed all those decisions as unlawful. Pre-trial investigation in merged criminal case no. 12013220490006012 of 19   November 2013 is still pending without any person being charged. The applicant complains that the investigation into her alleged ill ‑ treatment was lengthy and ineffective. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment, in breach of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention, as a result of domestic violent acts allegedly inflicted to her by B.O.?   2.     Having regard to the positive obligations of the respondent State inherent in Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention, has the domestic criminal investigation in the present case been in breach of either of these Articles (see Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009; Eremia v.   the   Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, 28 May 2013; Mudric v.   the   Republic of Moldova , no. 74839/10, 16 July 2013)?