The case of *Melnyk v. Ukraine* (application no. 25753/18) concerns the ill-treatment of a protestor by law enforcement officials during the “Euromaidan” events on 18 February 2014. The applicant, Mr. Mark Yuriyovych Melnyk, suffered bodily injuries during police operations, which were subsequently documented in medical reports. Despite ongoing domestic investigations into the Maidan-related violence, the Court found that the state failed to provide an effective investigation into the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case. The Court concluded that the police action constituted a violation of the applicant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Ultimately, the judgment confirms that the state’s failure to identify perpetrators and ensure accountability for the events of 2014 remains a systemic issue. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, and therefore, no financial award was granted.
**Structure and Provisions**
The decision follows the standard structure of a Committee judgment, consisting of the admissibility assessment, the merits, and the application of Article 41. The Court maintains consistency with its landmark ruling in *Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine* (2021), which serves as the primary legal framework for all Maidan-related cases. Unlike earlier, more complex judgments, this decision is concise, focusing on the application of established principles to the specific facts of Mr. Melnyk’s case. It rejects the Government’s argument that the case was premature due to ongoing domestic investigations, reaffirming that the duration and lack of progress in these investigations constitute a procedural violation.
**Main Provisions for Legal Use**
1. **Substantive Violation of Article 3:** The Court confirms that the use of force against the applicant was unjustified and amounted to ill-treatment, establishing state responsibility for the actions of its police officers.
2. **Procedural Violation of Article 3:** The judgment serves as a precedent that even if domestic investigations are “ongoing,” the lack of tangible progress and failure to identify specific perpetrators over a prolonged period (in this case, over 12 years) constitutes a breach of the state’s procedural obligation to investigate.
3. **Violation of Article 11:** The Court reaffirms that the police crackdown on the Euromaidan protests represented a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, reinforcing the protection of protestors against state-sponsored violence.
4. **Rejection of “Prematurity” Defense:** The decision is a vital tool for legal practitioners, as it explicitly rejects the Government’s recurring argument that applicants must wait indefinitely for domestic investigations to conclude before seeking redress at the Strasbourg level.
