AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
by Oleksandr Mykolayovych SYLENOK and Others
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 July 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 November 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The first applicant, Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Sylenok, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and resides in Chernigiv. The second applicant, Ms Svitlana Dmytriyvna Mashkina is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and resides in Chernigiv. The third applicant, “Tekhnoservis-Plus”, is a limited liability company registered and based in Chernigiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant runs a business in the city of Chernigiv. He has several enterprises. The third applicant is one of the enterprises of the first applicant and the second applicant is the director of the third applicant.
1. First applicant
Background to the case
According to the applicant, he had had problems with the law-enforcement authorities since 1992 in connection with his entrepreneurial activities, on account of his unwillingness to provide those authorities with “financial assistance” and his negative comments about them. In the first half of 1993 the applicant had been detained by the police for thirty days allegedly for identification purposes.
On several occasions the applicant had come into conflict with the law-enforcement officers and other individuals, and that had resulted in various criminal and administrative proceedings.
On 12 August 1999 the first applicant was arrested by the police and his car and other belonging were seized. The applicant was held at the police station for four hours. Some of his belongings have never been returned to him.
On 1 September 1999 the Chernigiv City Prosecutor’s Office (the CCPO) refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.
On 9 December 1999 the Chernigiv Desnyansky District Court (the Desnyansky Court) left the applicant’s complaint about the seizure of his car without consideration.
The seized car was meanwhile returned to the applicant on 25 November 1999.
On an unknown date the decision of 1 September 1999 was quashed and an additional investigation was ordered. On 3 July 2002 the CCPO refused to institute criminal proceedings.
On 18 April 2000 the first applicant resisted police officers who wanted him to go with them to the police station. He was taken to the police station by force and spent 28 hours there. He maintained that the police had beaten him and tried to force him to confess to criminal actions. According to the applicant, they also claimed that his company had provided police with “financial assistance”.
On 19 April 2000 the applicant was brought before the Chernigiv Novozavodsky District Court (the Novozavodsky Court) that found him guilty of the administrative offence of malicious resistance to the police, admonished him and ordered his release.
On 5 June 2002 the President of the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal (the Chernigiv Court) quashed the decision of 19 April 2000 and closed the case for lack of evidence of an offence.
On 21 May 2002 the applicant complained to the CCPO about the events of 18-19 April 2000. According to the applicant, he was subsequently informed about a refusal to institute criminal proceedings.
On 6 January 2001 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for inflicting bodily harm on Mr and Mrs Y.
On 8 January 2001 the applicant was arrested. Having had a conflict with the police during his arrest, the applicant was also charged with inflicting bodily harm on police officer G. in that connection.
According to the applicant, on several occasions the police had interfered with his defence rights, either by not allowing the lawyer to see him or by being present during such meetings.
The applicant submitted several requests for release with the prosecutors and courts but to no avail.
On 27 June 2001 the Novozavodsky Court found the applicant guilty of unintentionally inflicting medium-degree bodily harm on Mr G. and sentenced him to five months and nineteen days’ imprisonment. The applicant was acquitted of the other charges.
On 27 December 2001 the Chernigiv Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court with minor changes.
On 7 September 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
The applicant maintained that the investigation and the courts had committed numerous procedural violations and his requests for institution of criminal proceedings against the investigators and judges had been to no avail. The authorities had also disregarded his requests for protection of the applicant and his family.
On 30 May 2005 the Novozavodsky Court ordered the applicant’s arrest and placed him on a wanted list for failure to appear before the court. On 8 June 2005 the Chernigiv Court rejected the appeal of the applicant’s representative against the decision of 30 May 2005 on the ground that it was not subject to appeal. On 12 July 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the lower courts.
On 23 June 2005 the applicant was arrested. The same day the Novozavodsky Court rejected the applicant’s request to have the ordered detention replaced by a less strict preventive measure. On 12 July 2005 the Chernigiv Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 12 July 2005.
On 14 July 2005 the Novozavodsky Court terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant as further prosecution was time-barred. The applicant was released.
On 29 September 2005 the Chernigiv Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on account of procedural shortcomings and sent the case to the first-instance court.
On 25 October 2005 the Novozavodsky Court invited the applicant to correct the shortcomings of his appeal.
On 23 December 2005 the Novozavodsky Court returned the appeal to the applicant for failure to correct the procedural shortcomings.
On 29 May 2007 the Novozavodsky Court refused to renew the time-limit for lodging an appeal against its ruling of 23 December 2005. On 9 August 2007 the Chernigiv Court upheld the decision of 29 May 2007.
On 8 January 2001 the applicant was arrested in the street by plain-clothes police officers. The applicant resisted his arrest, being unaware that they were police officers. During the apprehension and later at the police station, the applicant was beaten by the police officers.
On 11 January 2001 the applicant was hospitalised with a broken rib, pneumothorax, head concussion and numerous bruises on his body.
A forensic medical examination revealed numerous bruises on different parts of the applicant’s body and brain concussion. At the same time it did not confirm that the applicant had a broken rib.
On 15 January 2001 the applicant complained to the CCPO about the beatings.
On 26 January 2001 the CCPO refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of beatings.
On 12 March 2001 the Cherngivi Regional Prosecutor’s Office (the CRPO) quashed the decision of 26 January 2001 and instructed the CCPO to conduct an additional investigation.
An additional forensic examination in March 2001 concluded that the applicant had numerous bruises (“application of force 45-50 times”), a broken rib, chest trauma, pneumothorax and brain concussion.
On 5 April 2001 the CCPO refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that the police had applied force lawfully.
On 17 April 2001 the Desnyansky Court quashed the decision of 5 April 2001 on the ground that the applicant and eyewitnesses had not been questioned and that the decision of the CCPO had not examined the circumstances in which the applicant had received so many injuries. The court ordered criminal proceedings to be instituted in the case.
On 24 July 2001 the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to identify the offenders.
On 11 December 2001 the criminal proceedings were resumed.
On 12 June 2007 the CRPO closed the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the action of the police officers.
In a letter of 29 December 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office (the GPO) informed the applicant that on 11 December 2007 it had quashed the decision of 12 June 2007 and remitted the case for an additional investigation.
On 9 January 2001 the police searched the premises of the third applicant, including the office of the first applicant. Certain property and documents were seized. The first applicant alleged that his property had been kept by investigator G. as a bribe. He and his wife complained to the CRPO.
On 1 October 2001 the CRPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against G.
On 14 January 2002 the Novozavodsky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the CRPO’s decision of 1 October 2001.
In January 2001 the police seized a vehicle, owned by the applicant, from Mr D. in the context of a criminal case not related to the applicant. On 24 April 2001 the vehicle was returned to Mr D.
On 30 May 2001 the Desnyansky Court examined the applicant’s complaint and found that the police had interfered with his right to use his property and ordered the removal of obstacles to the applicant’s use of his property.
In October 2001 the Desnyansky Bailiffs’ Service issued a document certifying that the decision of 29 May 2001 could not be enforced since the vehicle in question had been returned to Mr D. in April 2001.
On an unknown date the applicant lodged a complaint against the bailiff with the Desnyansky Court. On 22 October 2001 the court invited the applicant to bring his complaint in compliance with the procedural requirements and on 10 January 2002 rejected the above complaint for the applicant’s failure to comply with the previous decision of 22 October 2001.
On an unknown date, the bailiff ordered the police to find the impugned vehicle and on 5 January 2001 the police informed the bailiff that they had found the vehicle and were ready to hand it over to the applicant or his representative.
By letters of 5 December 2001, 25 January and 7 February 2002, the police and the applicant were invited by the bailiff to appear for enforcement of the judgment of 30 May 2001. On 10 December 2001, 29 January and 18 February 2002 the Desnyansky Bailiffs’ Service issued acts certifying that the applicant had failed to appear and therefore the judgment could not be enforced.
On 25 June 2002 the Desnyansky Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of execution to the applicant for his repeated failure to appear for enforcement of the judgment.
On 1 July 2003 the applicant re-lodged the writ of execution with the Desnyansky Bailiffs’ Service.
On 9 February 2004 the Desnyansky Bailiffs’ Service requested the Desnyansky Court to establish the means of enforcement of the judgment of 30 May 2001.
On 27 March 2006 the enforcement of the judgment was terminated.
On 8 February 2008 the Desnyansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the bailiff.
In December 2002 the applicant had several conflicts with the police officers who were guarding the Commercial Court in Chernigiv. Afterwards, the applicant complained about these incidents to the CRPO, which refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on 22 August 2003.
On 29 January 2003 the applicant had a conflict with traffic police. The applicant unsuccessfully requested the prosecutor to institute a criminal case against the police.
On 2 September 2003 the applicant lodged a claim with the Desnyansky Court against the police, seeking the return of his rifle that had been seized during the search of 9 January 2001 (see episode 5). Before the court, the police maintained that the applicant had several times been invited to come and take his rifle but had failed to appear. On 24 February 2004 the court ordered the police to return the rifle to the applicant.
In June 2006 the applicant claimed his rifle but it was explained to him that his weapons licence had expired and that he could only collect his rifle after renewing that licence. It does not appear from the applicant’s submissions that he has renewed or has applied for renewal of his licence.
According to the applicant, on 24 January 2008 the Desnyansky Court refused to issue a new writ of execution to him.
In February 2004 the CCPO instituted criminal proceedings against the managers of the Kharchopromservis Company that belonged to the applicant.
On 1 March 2004 the applicant was brought for questioning to the prosecutor’s office by the police and stayed there for more than two hours.
On 1 April 2004 the criminal proceedings were terminated by the court. The applicant unsuccessfully requested the institution of criminal proceedings against the prosecutors and the police.
On 14 April 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the police for forcing him to appear before the prosecutor on 1 March 2004. On 1 June 2004 the same court refused his appeal for being submitted too late.
In May 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for damages against the police for their failure to return the vehicle (see episode 6). The Desnyansky Court refused several times to entertain this claim either for the applicant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements or for his failure to appear before the court. In a decision of 15 November 2006 the Desnyansky Court left the applicant’s claim without consideration for failure to appear before the court. On 24 March and 17 April 2007 the Chernigiv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
On 1 October 2004 the applicant was attacked by unknown persons.
On 6 October 2004 the CCPO ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. According to the applicant, no further action was taken and his complaints to the CCPO about this incident were unsuccessful, as he learned from the CCPO’s letter of 28 March 2005.
According to the applicant, on 19 August 2005 he was threatened and beaten by three persons, one of whom was a police officer. The applicant did not complain about this accident and left the city for a while.
On 26 October 2005 the police tried to take him to the police station by force. In November 2005 he complained about this incident to different law-enforcement authorities but received no answer.
On 2 December 2005 the police used teargas against the applicant, handcuffed him and took him to the police station. They demanded that he stop complaining and leave the city. After five hours he was released. On 22 February 2006 the applicant sent a complaint to the GPO but received no answer.
On 29 April 2006 one of the police officers who had beaten him in January 2001 and an unknown person threatened the applicant and hit him with a truncheon for his refusal to stop complaining about the beatings in January 2001. According to the applicant he came to the trauma centre for medical assistance and told the doctors that he had been beaten by the police. According to the applicant, the prosecutor’s office conducted an inquiry but never informed him about the results.
On 16 June 2006 the applicant had a conflict with Mr and Mrs D. According to the applicant Mrs D. had borrowed a certain amount of money from him and had given him a gold ingot as security. On the same day Mr and Mrs D. had claimed the gold back and threatened the applicant.
Both parties lodged complaints with the police.
Consideration of the applicant’s complaint
On 29 June 2006 the Chernigiv Police Department refused to institute criminal proceedings upon the applicant’s complaint. This decision was quashed by the CCPO on 8 September 2006.
On 20 November 2006 the Desnyansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 29 June 2006 on the ground that it had already been quashed by the prosecutor. This decision was upheld by the Chernigiv Court of Appeal on 15 February 2007.
On 6 December 2006 the Desnyansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the actions of the police in investigating the case.
On 8 December 2006 the Chernigiv Police Department decided not to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaint.
On 19 January 2007 the decision of 8 December 2006 was quashed by the CPO.
On 23 January 2007 the Desnyansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 6 December 2006 on the ground that it had already been quashed by the prosecutor.
According to the applicant, his further complaints to the prosecutors about the investigation remained without due consideration.
Consideration of the complaint of Mr and Mrs D.
Mr and Mrs D lodged a complaint about being robbed by the applicant on 16 June 2006.
On 21 June 2006 the Chernigiv Police Department instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the theft of a golden chain and purse from Mr and Mrs D.
On 17 July 2006 the police investigator ordered that the applicant be brought before him on a compulsory basis (примусовий привід) without indicating in what capacity.
On 11 August 2006 the Desnyansky Court ordered the arrest of the first applicant. On 14 September 2006 the Chernigiv Court rejected the appeal of the applicant’s representative against the decision of 11 August 2006. On 8 August 2007 the Supreme Court refused to consider the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the above decisions were not appealable in cassation.
On 17 July 2006 the Chernigiv Police Department also ordered the search of premises of the third applicant.
On an unknown date the applicant challenged in the Desnyansky Court the decision of 21 June 2006 of the Chernigiv Police Department.
On 25 September 2006 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint.
On 16 November 2006 the Chernigiv Court quashed the decision of 25 September 2006 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
On 19 December 2006 the Desnyansky Court found for the applicant and quashed the decision of 21 June 2006 on the institution of a criminal case in respect of robbery on the ground that the proceedings had not been brought against a particular person – the applicant – although the alleged victims had indicated him as the offender. This decision was upheld by the Chernigiv Court on 12 April 2007. On 15 June 2007 the judge of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings in the case.
Meanwhile, on 15 November 2006 the Chernigiv Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant.
On 31 January 2007 the Desnyansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 15 November 2006. On 29 March 2007 the Chernigiv Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. On 15 June 2007 the judge of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings in the case.
On 14 November 2006 the police arrested the applicant. During the apprehension the applicant resisted police and received bodily injuries. The police seized some of the applicant’s belongings, including a computer on which there were electronic versions of some of the complaints of the applicants.
On 23 November 2006 and 7 December 2006 the CCPO refused to institute criminal proceedings upon the applicant’s complaints against the police actions.
On 11 January 2007 the Desnyansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 7 December 2006 and gave a separate ruling to check the applicant’s allegations about lack of sufficient medical assistance after his arrest.
On 1 March 2007 the Chernigiv Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
2. Second and third applicants
According to the applicants, in 2000-2002 the authorities conducted numerous checks on the third applicant for its compliance with fire-safety regulations and with the conditions of its seller’s licence. The applicants considered it to be revenge for their refusal to provide the police and the fire brigade with “financial assistance”.
In February 2002 the applicants requested the Consultative Bureau on Human Rights of the Union of Advocates of Ukraine to assist them in lodging an application with the Court but received no answer.
On 14 June 2001 a large quantity of alcoholic drinks were confiscated from the third applicant. On 3 August 2001 the Desnyansky Court found the second applicant guilty of selling alcohol without a licence and ordered confiscation of the alcohol from the third applicant, of which the second applicant was a director. It also fined the second applicant 51 Ukrainian hryvnya (UAH) for that offence.
On 11 April 2003 the Supreme Court allowed the extraordinary appeal of the second applicant, quashed the decision of 3 August 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
On 11 August 2003 the Desnyansky Court reclassified the action of the second applicant and closed the case for being time-barred. The Court also ruled on the return of the confiscated alcohol to the third applicant.
On 17 September 2004 the Chernigiv Commercial Court awarded the third applicant from the State budget UAH 14,240.69 in damages, UAH 142.41 in fees and UAH 118.00 in costs and expenses1.
On 1 September 2006 the State Bailiffs’ Service refused to enforce the decision of 17 September 2004, as the enforcement writ did not indicate the debtor or its location.
The third applicant requested the Chernigiv Commercial Court to specify in the enforcement writ the accounts of the State Treasury from which the awarded amounts should be paid.
On 23 November 2006 the court refused the applicant’s request on the ground that the representative of the Treasury had not appeared and the other parties did not know the accounts, nor were they indicated in the case-file materials.
On 26 March 2004 the Chernigiv Commercial Court ordered the Chernigiv Police Department to return different spare parts from vehicles to the third applicant.
On 16 October 2007 the Chernigiv Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of execution to the third applicant on the ground that the latter had failed to appear to collect the spare parts in question on several occasions.
On 6 April 2004 the Chernigiv Commercial Court rejected the claim for damages caused by the search of 9 January 2001 lodged by the third applicant against the police.
On 21 July and 11 November 2004 and 13 January 2005, respectively, the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal, the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
On 30 July 2004 the Chernigiv Commercial Court ordered the police to return financial documents to the third applicant. On 18 June 2007 the Chernigiv Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of execution to the third applicant on the ground that the police did not have the documents in question and it was not possible to find them.
A. Complaint of 5 November 2001
In his first letter of 5 November 2001 the first applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention about an ineffective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment (episode 4).
B. Complaints of 9 April 2002
On 9 April 2002 the first applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about an ineffective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, procedural violations in the criminal proceedings against him and failure to provide him and his family with protection against the police (episodes 3 and 4).
C. Complaints of 27 June and 19 August 2002
1. The first applicant
The first applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about being beaten by police on 8 January 2001, about insufficient medical assistance by ambulance and hospital staff on 8 January 2001 and 11-18 January 2001, and about the conditions of his detention from 8 to 11 January 2001 at the police station and from 18 January to 28 June 2001 in the Chernigiv SIZO (episodes 3 and 4).
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the unlawfulness of his detention between 8 January and 28 June 2001 and under Articles 5 § 4 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of inappropriate examination by the courts and the prosecutors of his requests for release during the said period (episode 3).
The applicant further complained about the violation of his procedural rights under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention in the pending criminal proceedings against him (episode 3).
The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the seizure of his personal belongings by the police on 8 and 9 January 2001 (episodes 3 and 5).
The first applicant also complained that the seizure of his vehicle and flat had been unlawful. He complained about a failure to return his vehicle in accordance with the court decision of 30 May 2001 (episode 6).
Under Article 8 the applicant complained about a lack of privacy and other conditions of his detention, the censoring of his letter to the prosecutor, and the seizure of keys and photos during the search in his office (episodes 3 and 5).
Under Articles 13 and 14 the applicant complained about the failure of the prosecutor, police and courts to examine his complaints concerning the violation of his above-mentioned rights.
2. The second applicant
The second applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the court decision of 3 August 2001, in which the court had found her guilty of an administrative offence of selling alcohol without a licence, had ordered confiscation of alcohol and money from the third applicant (she claimed that the confiscated money included her personal money) and had imposed a fine on her. She further complained under Article 6 that the above-mentioned decision was not subject to appeal and that the higher courts had refused to review it under the extraordinary review procedure. She also complained under Article 13 that the requests of the third applicant to institute criminal proceedings against the police and the prosecutors for violating their rights had not been satisfied (episode 20).
3. The third applicant
The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about unlawful checks and closures by the fire brigade, police and local authorities, and claims of bribes and “financial assistance” by the latter. It further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol about the court decision of 3 August 2001 concerning confiscation of alcohol (episodes 19 and 20).
The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 about failure by a law office to provide it with legal assistance concerning the procedure for lodging an application with the Court (episode 19).
The applicant also complained about a violation of Article 13 of the Convention for refusals by the prosecutors to institute criminal proceedings into those complaints.
D. Complaints of 23 February 2004
The first applicant further complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about refusals by the Desnyansky Court and the Chernigiv Court of Appeal, on 4 March 2003 and 23 May 2003 respectively, to examine his administrative complaint against the police about confiscation of a rifle and failure to return it (episode 9).
E. Complaints of 16 February 2008
In their submissions the applicants reiterated their previous complaints and submitted new ones.
1. The first applicant
2. The second applicant
In addition to the original complaints the second applicant complained under Article 6 that the Supreme Court had remitted her case for fresh consideration instead of terminating the proceedings. She further complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably long (episode 20).
3. The third applicant
The third applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of unlawful checks, closures and seizure of goods in December 2000 and January 2001, and failure to investigate under Article 6 (episode 19).
In addition to the 2002 complaints about confiscation of alcohol, the applicant complained that the judgment by which it was awarded compensation had not been enforced and that the prosecutors had failed to institute criminal proceedings against the police (episode 20).
It further complained about non-enforcement of other judgments given in its favour (see episodes 21 and 23).
It lastly complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about court decisions concerning compensation for the search (see episode 22) and alleged that the courts had lacked impartiality.
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The third applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 September 2004 given in its favour and lack of effective remedies in this respect (episode 20). It invoked Article 13 (cited above), together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
Accordingly, it rejects this part of the application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning the first applicant’s alleged beating by the police in January 2001 and the lack of an effective investigation into these allegations (Articles 3 and 13), as well as the non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 September 2004 given in favour of the third applicant and the lack of effective remedies in this respect (Articles 6 § 1 and 13, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Peer
Deputy Registrar President
1 Total of UAH 14,501.10 which was equivalent to EUR 2,246.43 on the date of judgment