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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 2493/19 and 2509/19 Vasyl Mykhaylovych SIMKAYLO against Ukraine and Volodymyr Vasylyovych SIMKAYLO against Ukraine lodged on 12 December 2018 and 12 December 2018 respectively communicated on 8 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants, a father and son, allege that on 17 March 2014 they were ill-treated (punched, arms twisted, and threatened with firearms) on the premises of a police station by a group of individuals led by Father A., a priest, and claiming to be associated with a paramilitary organisation. The second applicant’s (Mr Volodymyr Simkaylo’s) arm was broken, allegedly as a result of the ill-treatment. Criminal proceedings were instituted in March 2014 but there has allegedly been no progress in them ever since. In 2015, 2016 and 2017 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the investigation was ongoing and that instructions had been given to the police to speed up the investigation. On 2 October 2018 the Kolomyya Court observed that the investigation was ongoing and delayed; but it refused to order that the investigation be completed within a given time-frame, relying on the lack of its jurisdiction to order such measures. According to the applicants, there have been no developments in the case since then. The applicants complain under Article   3 of the Convention that no effective investigation was conducted into the incident and under Article   13 of the Convention that, because of the absence of an effective investigation, they were unable to obtain compensation for the damage caused to them.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?     2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see, for example,   Labita v.   Italy   [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR   2000-IV , Beganović v.   Croatia , no.   46423/06, § 71, 25 June 2009, and Kaverzin v.   Ukraine , no.   23893/03, §§   169-182, 15   May   2012), was the investigation in the present case adequate for the purposes of Article   3   of   the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, were they able to obtain compensation for the damage caused by the ill-treatment complained of (see, for example, Basenko v.   Ukraine , no.   24213/08, §§ 104-106, 26 November 2015)?