CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39613/20 Stanislav Oleksandrovych SERGIYENKO against Ukraine lodged on 20 August 2020 communicated on 8 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged lack of effective investigation into the   applicant’s ill-treatment inflicted by private individuals. In August-September 2016 the applicant, a civil activist and a member of an NGO “Social Movement”, which opposed the reforms of higher education, started receiving multiple physical threats on his social networks accounts after some anti-war slogans having been pronounced by members of the NGO at one of its demonstrations. On 20 April 2017 at around 3.20 p.m., he was attacked by two unknown armed people near an entrance to a multi-story building where he lived. One of the attackers filmed the event. The applicant was stabbed three times in the   lateral parts of both of his thighs and sustained a wound to his femoral artery and the thigh muscle disorder. On the same day he was operated and, on 2   May 2017, he was discharged from a hospital in a state of medium gravity. On 20 April 2017 the applicant complained about the attack on the grounds of dissatisfaction with his political views to the police. On 21 April 2017 they opened a criminal case into the infliction of minor bodily injuries under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code. During April-May 2017, the applicant was twice questioned by the police. He stated, among other things, that a video footage of his assault had been published on the Internet with the physical threat to people who would support him. The applicant’s lawyer informed the police that the applicant had previously received threats from the far-right activists from the C14 organisation, which leader posted a video on Facebook, acknowledging the   organisation’s involvement in the applicant’s assault. He asked the police to add the video footage to the criminal case as a piece of evidence as well as to undertake other procedural actions. In April 2017 a prosecutor reclassified the criminal case under Article   296 § 4 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism committed with arms), without, apparently, any further procedural actions being taken. On 3 April 2019 a German Administrative Court granted asylum to the applicant, who had moved to Germany in the meantime. The applicant relied in his application for asylum on the facts of his stabbing, threats to his life or health and the lack of investigation into the matter. On 24 June 2020 the investigator ordered that a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries be carried out. On 1 July 2020 a forensic institute informed the investigator that the   applicant’s presence was necessary in order to carry out the forensic examination of his injuries. The investigation proceedings are still ongoing. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into his ill-treatment was ineffective. He also complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the State failed to abide by its positive obligations and protect his right to freedom of expression, given that he was attacked on account of his civil activities and political views. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2. If so, having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     In so far as the investigation into the assault on the applicant is concerned, did the State discharge its positive obligation under Article 10 of the Convention to take all necessary measures to investigate a conduct having a chilling effect on the applicant’s activity as a civil activist, including private violent acts committed against him (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§ 158-66, 10   January 2019; see also   Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no. 23144/93, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000-III; and Najafli v. Azerbaijan , no. 2594/07, §§ 57-70, 2 October 2012)?