The case of *Melnyk v. Ukraine* (application no. 25753/18) concerns the ill-treatment of a protestor by law enforcement officers during the “Euromaidan” events on February 18, 2014. The applicant, Mr. Mark Yuriyovych Melnyk, suffered bodily injuries during police operations and subsequently alleged that the state failed to conduct an effective investigation into these events. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the case in the context of the established jurisprudence regarding the Maidan protests. The Court concluded that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment and that his right to peaceful assembly was disproportionately interfered with. Furthermore, the Court found that the domestic investigation into the applicant’s complaints remained ineffective. Consequently, the Court ruled that there were violations of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3, as well as a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
The structure of the decision follows the standard format for a Committee-level judgment of the ECtHR. It begins with the admissibility phase, where the Court rejects the Government’s argument that the application was premature due to ongoing domestic investigations, citing established precedents such as *Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine*. The merits section relies heavily on the principles established in *Shmorgunov*, applying them to the specific facts of Mr. Melnyk’s case. Unlike many other judgments, this decision does not award financial compensation under Article 41, as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. The judgment maintains consistency with previous rulings on Maidan-related violence, reinforcing the Court’s stance on the systemic nature of these violations.
The most important provisions of this decision for legal practitioners and observers include:
1. **Rejection of the “Prematurity” Argument:** The Court explicitly reaffirmed that the ongoing nature of domestic investigations into Maidan-related crimes does not preclude the Court from examining the merits of a complaint, effectively dismissing the Government’s attempt to delay proceedings based on the duration of domestic inquiries.
2. **Substantive and Procedural Article 3 Violations:** The judgment confirms that the state bears responsibility not only for the physical ill-treatment of protestors (substantive limb) but also for the failure to conduct a prompt, thorough, and independent investigation into such acts (procedural limb).
3. **Article 11 Protection:** The Court reiterated that the use of force against peaceful protestors constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of assembly, reinforcing the protection of democratic participation.
4. **Reliance on Established Precedent:** By aligning this case with the *Shmorgunov* and *Krasnyanchuk and Kovalyov* rulings, the Court signals that the legal assessment of the Maidan events is settled, and individual cases will be decided based on the established pattern of state failure to protect protestors and investigate abuses.
