European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 26815/16 and 43612/16)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

21 March 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Petrakovskyy and Leontyev v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Lado Chanturia, President,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 María Elósegui, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by the two applicants listed in the appended tables ("the applicants"), on the dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 below to the Ukrainian Government ("the Government"), represented, most recently, by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko;

the parties' observations;

Having deliberated in private on 22 February 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The applicants alleged, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by the police with a view to extracting false self-incriminating statements from them and that the investigations into their respective complaints had been ineffective.

2.  Mr D. I. Leontyev (application no. 43612/16) additionally relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, complaining that the conditions of his detention in Zaporizhzhia SIZO had been inhuman and degrading and that there had been no effective domestic remedies in that regard. In addition, he complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings initiated against him had been excessive.

3.  The facts relevant to the individual applications are set out in detail in the appended tables.

THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED POLICE ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION

5.  The applicants complained that they had been ill-treated by the police and that their respective complaints had not been properly investigated. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

6.  The Government argued that the above complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

7.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the general principles established in its case-law (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), the Court considers that the applicants raised credible ill-treatment claims at the domestic level. Those claims triggered an obligation on the part of the national authorities to carry out an effective and thorough investigation with a view to establishing the origin of the applicants' injuries, as well as identifying and punishing those responsible, should the allegations of ill-treatment have proven to be true.

8.  Regard being had to the evidential gaps and contradictions in the domestic case files and in the factual submissions by the parties (see appended tables for details), the Court finds it impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants sustained their injuries while under the control of the police, as they alleged. The Court considers that the difficulty in determining the substance of the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment stems from the authorities' failure to investigate their complaints effectively (see, in particular, Popa v. Moldova, no. 29772/05, §§ 39 and 45, 21 September 2010; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, §§ 109 and 119, 25 June 2013; and Barysheva v. Ukraine, no. 9505/12, § 55, 14 March 2017).

9.  From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not constitute a serious effort to determine the relevant facts.

10.  The Court notes that in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §§ 173-80, 15 May 2012), it found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of ill-treatment complaints lodged against police authorities constituted a systemic problem within the meaning of Article 46 of the Convention. The Court considers that the present applications, in view of their circumstances and its previous case-law, constitute another example of such a failure to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation.

11.  The Court therefore concludes that the present complaints are admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court further concludes that the complaints raised by Mr D.I. Leontyev (application no. 43612/16) under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention in the Zaporizhzhia pre-trial detention centre (SIZO) and the lack of domestic remedies in that regard (see appended table 2 for details) are admissible and disclose breaches of the Convention in the light of the Court's well-established case-law (see, in particular, Muršić v. Croatia, [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122-41, ECHR 2016; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 110-12, 28 March 2006; and, as a more recent example, Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, §§ 125-30, 19 February 2019).

4. REMAINING COMPLAINT

13.  As regards the remaining complaint raised by Mr D.I. Leontyev (application no. 43612/16) under Article 6 of the Convention, concerning an allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, the Court notes that these proceedings were initiated on 20 February 2014 and lasted until 13 February 2020, that is, five years and eleven months, at three levels of jurisdiction. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not disclose an appearance of a violation of that provision.

14.  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  The applicants lodged just satisfaction claims under Article 41 of the Convention (see appended tables for details).

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the appended tables. It dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction brought by Mr D.I. Leontyev.

17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares admissible the complaints raised by both applicants of police ill-treatment and the ineffectiveness of the investigations in that regard, as well as the complaints raised by Mr D.I. Leontyev (application no. 43612/16) concerning the conditions of his detention and lack of effective remedies for his complaint;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the complaints of police ill-treatment raised by both applicants;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the complaint raised by Mr D.I. Leontyev as regards the conditions of detention in Zaporizhzhia SIZO;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the complaint raised by Mr D.I. Leontyev as regards the lack of effective domestic remedies for his complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in Zaporizhzhia SIZO;
6. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended tables, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction brought by Mr D.I. Leontyev.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Martina Keller Lado Chanturia
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX