CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.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 } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s3B53EBC8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:5pt } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 58006/21 Sergiy Mykolayovych NUZHNENKO against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On the dates indicated in the appended table the applicants were beaten and arrested by police officers while participating in 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). They complain under Article 3 of the Convention of the alleged ill-treatment by the police officers and their failure to conduct an effective official investigation in this regard; under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention of the applicants’ unlawful and arbitrarily detention; and under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of effective domestic remedies for these complaints. In applications nos. 58006/21, 40104/22 and 26997/24, the applicants additionally complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the excessive length of examination of their compensation claims regarding the alleged violations. In applications nos. 40104/22, 7889/23 and 26997/24, the applicants also complain under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that they were prevented from participating in the protests and thus from expressing their political views due to their ill-treatment and detention. In application no. 58006/21, the applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was prevented from exercising his right to receive and impart information as a journalist. In applications nos. 40104/22 and 26997/24, the applicants also complain that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as set out in Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, was violated due to damage allegedly caused to their cars by the police, for which the authorities failed to provide compensation. Further details regarding the related events are set out in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to their allegations that they were ill-treated by the police (see Shmorgunov and   Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 359-74, 21   January 2021)?   2.     Have the domestic authorities conducted an effective official investigation into the above complaints, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§ 327-58)?   3.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§ 459-81)?   4.     Has the length of the judicial examination of Mr S. Nuzhnenko’s, Mr   O.   Kravtsov’s, Mr A. Shmyndyuk’s and Mr I. Kobzar’s compensation claims (applications nos. 58006/21, 40104/22, 26997/24) been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karnaushenko v. Ukraine , no. 23853/02, §§ 47-62, 30   November 2006)?   5.     Regarding applications nos. 40104/22, 7889/23 and 26997/24, has there been an interference with Mr O. Kravtsov’s, Mr O. Sobchenko’s, Mr   A.   Shmyndyuk’s and Mr I. Kobzar’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly on account of their alleged ill-treatment and arbitrary detention by the police, and, if so, has the interference been contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§ 490-521)?   6.     Regarding application no. 58006/21, has there been an interference with Mr S. Nuzhnenko’s right to receive and impart information and ideas as a journalist on account of his alleged ill-treatment and arbitrary detention by the police, and, if so, has it been contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Najafli v. Azerbaijan , no.   2594/07, §§   57 ‑ 70, 2   October 2012, and Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no.   23144/93, §§   42-46, ECHR 2000 III)?   7.     Regarding applications nos. 40104/22 and 26997/24, has there been an interference with Mr O. Kravtsov’s and Mr. A. Shmyndyuk’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the damage caused to their cars and the authorities’ alleged failure to compensate for that damage (see Korotyuk v.   Ukraine , no.   74663/17, §§   36-57, 19 January 2023)? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   8.     Have there been effective domestic remedies available for the above complaints under Articles 3, 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Relevant facts 1. 58006/21 Nuzhnenko v.   Ukraine 15/11/2021 Sergiy Mykolayovych NUZHNENKO 1982 Kyiv Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO   On 1 December 2013, during the dispersal of Maidan protesters near the Presidential Administration building in central Kyiv, the applicant, a professional journalist, was allegedly beaten by police while observing and photographing the protest; his camera was seized. Subsequently, he was arrested on suspicion of mass disorder and taken to the Kyiv Emergency Care Hospital, where he was placed in a special guarded unit. According to the medical report drawn up on his admission to the hospital, he had a closed craniocerebral injury, concussion, head wound, contusion to the chest, multiple hematomas on the face, trunk of the body and limbs. On 3 December 2013 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention. On 11 December 2013 the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 3 December 2013 and ordered the applicant’s release, having applied a preventive measure of personal commitment. After one and a half months, his camera was returned without the memory cards, which were allegedly destroyed. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated on 28   February 2014. Following his complaints to the prosecutors, supported by the relevant medical evidence, on 2 December 2013 and 13 February 2015 official investigations were launched regarding his alleged ill-treatment, allegedly arbitrary detention and obstruction of the lawful journalistic activities. As of September 2025, the criminal proceedings into the applicant’s beating and arrest by the police, within which on 28 April 2016 and 23   May 2017 he had filed civil claims against the defendants, were still ongoing. 2. 40104/22 Kravtsov v. Ukraine 05/08/2022 Oleksandr Andriyovych KRAVTSOV 1983 Chernigiv Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO The applicant was allegedly beaten by the police on 23 January 2024 during the Maidan protest in Kyiv and sustained contusion to the thigh, and hematomas on the face and limbs. The police also damaged his car, causing him a loss of approx. EUR 3,000. Subsequently, the applicant was taken to a police station, where a report was drawn up arresting him on suspicion of hooliganism. On 24 January 2014 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention. On 10 February 2014 the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 24 January 2014 and ordered his release, having applied a preventive measure of personal commitment. The charges were further reclassified as mass disorder and on 26 February 2014 the criminal proceedings against him were terminated. Following the applicant’s complaints to the prosecutors, supported by the relevant medical evidence, official investigations were launched regarding his alleged ill ‑ treatment and allegedly arbitrary detention, within which the applicant filed a civil claim on 22 March 2016. As of September 2025, the criminal proceedings into the applicant’s beating and arrest by the police were still ongoing. 3. 7889/23 Sobchenko v. Ukraine 27/01/2023 Oleg Andriyovych SOBCHENKO 1973 Cherkasy Ukrainian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA The applicant was beaten by the police on the night of 26-27 January 2014 during the Maidan protest in Cherkasy and sustained fracture of the frontal sinus, fracture of the leg bone, nasal fracture, haemorrhages on the face, chest, and limbs. Subsequently, the applicant was briefly taken to a police station and then in a medical facility due to his injuries, from where he fled fearing for his life. He further underwent medical treatment in Lviv. On 15 February 2023 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of K., a police commander who ordered to beat and arrest the protesters in Cherkasy, for abuse of powers. In those proceedings, the applicant’s civil claim was returned to a first-instance court for fresh consideration under the civil procedure because the criminal courts had failed to involve the National Police in the Luhansk Region and the Ministry of Internal Affairs as co-defendants. The case is currently pending. Other sets of criminal proceedings opened regarding the applicant’s beating and arrest by the police are still ongoing. 4. 26997/24 Shmyndyuk and Kobzar v. Ukraine 07/09/2024 Andriy Bogdanovych SHMYNDYUK 1976 Ternopil Ukrainian Igor Georgiyovych KOBZAR 1986 Novosilky Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO The applicants were allegedly beaten by the police on 23 January 2024 during the Maidan protest in Kyiv. One of the applicants, Mr   A.   Shmyndyuk, sustained a closed craniocerebral injury, concussion, contusion to the forehead, fracture of the hand, multiple hematomas on the face, head, trunk of the body and limbs. The police also damaged his car, causing him a loss of approx. EUR 2,000. Another applicant, Mr   I.   Kobzar, sustained closed craniocerebral injury, concussion, contusions to the head and left ear, multiple hematomas on the trunk of the body and limbs. Subsequently, the applicants were taken to a police station, where a report was drawn up arresting them on suspicion of hooliganism. Subsequently, the applicants were taken to Kyiv Emergency Care Hospital, where they spent 22 days. On 25 January 2014 the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicants’ detention. The charges were further reclassified as mass disorder and on 13 February 2014 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court ordered the applicants’ home arrest. The criminal proceedings against them were terminated on 19 January 2015. Following the applicants’ complaints to the prosecutors, supported by the relevant medical evidence, official investigations were launched regarding their alleged ill-treatment and allegedly arbitrary detention, within which they filed civil claims. On 9 July 2024 and 22 July 2024 Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the first instance court terminating the criminal proceedings against certain police officers suspected of having been involved in the events at issue as time-barred. The applicants’ civil claims of 28 April 2017 and 2 August 2019 were left unexamined. On 10 July 2024 Kyiv Court of Appeal remitted to the first instance court for fresh examination the criminal proceedings against other police officers also suspected of having been involved in the events at issue. Within those proceedings, Mr A. Shmyndyuk filed civil claims in October 2016. According to the applicants, the criminal proceedings are ongoing.