CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 41759/20 L.B. against Ukraine lodged on 3 September 2020 communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged lack of effective investigation into the rape of the applicant, a minor at the relevant time. On 15 June 2000 at around 11 p.m., the applicant, 14 y.o., was raped by three young men, V.M., O.M., and O.V., who was 17 y.o. On 18 June 2000 the applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint. On 20 June 2000 a prosecutor opened a criminal case no. 9606/00 against V.M., O.M., O.V. under Article 117 § 3 of the Criminal Code (rape committed in group or rape of a minor). In July 2000 a forensic medical examination of the applicant was carried out, which classified the applicant’s injuries (a haemorrhage on the right cheekbone, abrasions on the right cheek, abrasions on the right anterolateral part of the neck, two bruises on the right forearm, abrasions on the right hand, scratches in the area of the right knee joint, bruises on the left forearm, three   bruises in the area of the left patella, two scratches on the left tibia) as minor. The doctor could not determine whether there had been traces proving that the actions of sexual character had been committed against the applicant, given that the applicant had an old fracture of her   hymen and its biological structure could not stay intact during such actions. In the end of September 2000 V.M. and O.M. were put on a wanted list. On 20 October 2000 a forensic examination of the applicant’s clothes was carried out, which detected blood and sperm on her jeans, and sperm on her slips and sport jacket, which she was wearing at the night of the events. In 2001 during the transfer of the criminal case file materials from the police office to the prosecutor’s office, the applicant’s clothes were lost. On 30 April 2001 O.V. was charged under Article 117 § 3 of the Criminal Code. On 18 July 2001 the materials of the criminal case against O.V. were severed into separate proceedings. On 22 August 2001 the Korosten District Court of the Zhytomyr Region remitted the case against O.V. for additional investigation. The criminal proceedings in case no. 9606/00 were stayed, given that the whereabouts of V.M. and O.M. were unknown. On 1 August 2008 the Ukrainian department of the Interpol informed the police in the Zhytomyr Region that V.M. had been found living in California, USA. On 19 September 2008 the police in the Russian Federation informed the Korosten police that O.M. had been arrested and that the question of his extradition to Ukraine had to be examined by the Russian prosecutor’s office. On 6 February 2009 the Korosten District Court of the Zhytomyr Region (“the Korosten Court”) put O.M. in ten days’ detention. On 12 February 2009 the Korosten Court released O.M. on bail in the amount of Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) 8500 (around 850 euros (EUR) at the material time). On 18 February 2009 the Zhytomyr Forensic Expert Institution sent a letter to the police informing that it had been impossible to carry out a forensic immunological examination of the samples of O.M.’s blood, given that the applicant’s clothes with the stains of biological nature had been missing. On 24 April 2009 the police closed the criminal case for lack of evidence. On 22 July 2009 the prosecutor’s office quashed that decision. On 23 March 2011 the police seized the applicant’s medical documents, containing her medical records up to 28 August 2008. On the same day the above-mentioned medical documents were added to the criminal case file as evidence. On 31 August 2011 V.M. was detained. On 3 September 2011 the Korosten Court put V.M. in ten days’ detention. On 9 September 2011 the Korosten Court granted the application by the police and released V.M. on bail in the amount of UAH 9000 (around EUR   803 at the relevant time). On 18 October 2011 the police drafted an indictment in relation to O.M. On 17 December 2012 the Korosten Court closed the criminal proceedings for the expiry of time-limit for prosecution and released O.M. On 21 February 2013 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above-mentioned decision and remitted the case to the Korosten Court for re ‑ examination. On 14 May 2013 the applicant lodged a civil claim against O.M. On 9 December 2013 the Korosten Court remitted the case for additional investigation. On 11 March 2014 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the latter decision and remitted the case to the Korosten Court for additional examination. On 9 December 2014 the Korosten Court stayed the proceedings and ordered the O.M. be put on a wanted list. On 14 July 2017 the police wrote to the Korosten Court, informing that according to the information received from the Russian National Central Bureau of Interpol, the applicant had a Russian passport and had been registered there. On 17 December 2018 the Korosten Court resumed the proceedings. By its in-absentia decision of 8 August 2019 the Korosten Court found O.M. guilty under Article 117 § 3 of the Criminal Code, sentenced him to ten   years’ imprisonment, but released him from punishment on the grounds of the expiry of time-limit for prosecution. That court allowed the applicant’s civil claim and ordered that O.M. pay the applicant UAH 50,000. On 4 December 2019 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above decision and remitted the case to the Korosten Court for re ‑ examination. The applicant did not provide further information about the outcome of the court proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the State failed to effectively investigate her allegations of rape and punish the perpetrators. She further complains under Article 3 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that the procedure for appeal against a decision to close the criminal case, provided for under the old Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, had been ineffective. Furthermore, referring to Article 6 of the Convention taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13, she complains that the length of criminal proceedings was excessive.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the positive obligations of States inherent in Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention to carry out a thorough and effective investigation and prosecution of acts of sexual abuse and   rape, has the investigation and the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the above ‑ mentioned obligations (see, for instance,   M.C. v.   Bulgaria , no.   39272/98, §§ 148-152, ECHR 2003-XII; E.G. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 37882/13, §§ 41-50, 13 April 2021)? 2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case, to which the applicant was a civil party, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1? Did the applicant have an effective remedy in this regard, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?