CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 29 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2809/20 Anatoliy Dmytrovych LOGVYNENKO against Ukraine lodged on 31 December 2019 communicated on 8 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint under Articles   2 and 13 of the Convention regarding authorities’ alleged failure to effectively investigate an attempt on his life. The applicant was one of police officers deployed in response to the series of protests in Ukraine between 21   November 2013 and 21 February 2014, commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan” (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021). On 18   February 2014 he sustained a gunshot wound to the head and underwent inpatient treatment for almost a month. Criminal investigation into this incident was initiated on 22 September 2017. As of May 2025, the investigation was ongoing. The applicant also complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of excessive length of criminal proceedings, in which on 22   January 2015 he was notified of suspicion of excessive use of force during the Maidan events. As of May 2025, the case was pending before Sviatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, have the domestic authorities conducted an effective official investigation into the attempt on the applicant’s life, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR   2000-VII, and Ribcheva and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 37801/16 and   2   others, §§ 125-51, 30 March 2021, and Yotova v. Bulgaria , 43606/04, §§ 75-92, 23   October 2012 with further references)?   2.     Is the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention Court (see Nechay v. Ukraine , no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021)?