Here’s a breakdown of the Romanenko v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerned allegations by Mr. Romanenko, a Ukrainian national, of ill-treatment by police and the ineffectiveness of the subsequent investigation, as well as the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him. The Court found no violation regarding the alleged ill-treatment itself, concluding that the injuries sustained were a result of force made necessary by the applicant’s own conduct. However, the Court did find a violation of Article 3 due to the ineffective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s complaints and the government’s response.
* It details the applicant’s account of the events, alleging police misconduct, and the government’s version, which claims the applicant’s actions led to the confrontation.
* The Court assesses the admissibility of the complaints, joining the government’s objection regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits of the Article 3 complaint.
* It then examines the alleged violation of Article 3, first addressing the alleged ill-treatment and then the effectiveness of the investigation.
* The Court also considers the length of the criminal proceedings in relation to Article 6 § 1.
* Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 3 (Ill-treatment):** The Court emphasizes that while injuries were sustained, the use of force by police was justified by the applicant’s own actions. This highlights the principle that the assessment of ill-treatment allegations takes into account the context and the individual’s behavior.
* **Article 3 (Investigation):** The judgment underscores the importance of a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by State agents. The Court criticizes the initial police inquiry and the subsequent delays and superficiality of the investigation.
* **Article 6 § 1 (Length of Proceedings):** The Court reiterates its established case-law on the right to a trial within a reasonable time, finding a violation due to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
This decision serves as a reminder of the State’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment and to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted without undue delay.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
