1. Essence of the decision:
\nThe European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Bilyy v. Ukraine concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by police convoy officers in 2016, when he sustained a head injury while consulting case files on court premises. The Court found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in both its procedural and substantive aspects, as the state failed to provide a plausible explanation for the applicant’s injuries and conducted an ineffective investigation.<\/p>\n
2. Structure and main provisions:
\nThe decision outlines the factual background of the incident, presents conflicting accounts from the applicant and police officers, and details the subsequent investigation process. The Court examined two main aspects:
\n– The substantive violation of Article 3 due to the unexplained head injury sustained while under police control
\n– The procedural violation due to ineffective investigation, characterized by:
\n * Failure to grant the applicant victim status
\n * Three identical decisions to discontinue investigation
\n * Lack of proper verification of the convoy officers’ version of events
\n * Insufficient investigative measures<\/p>\n
3. Key provisions for practical use:
\n– The Court established that when a person sustains injuries while under police control, the State bears responsibility for providing a plausible explanation
\n– The decision reinforces the standard that a credible allegation of ill-treatment triggers the state’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation
\n– The Court awarded \u20ac15,000 in non-pecuniary damages and \u20ac1,000 for costs and expenses
\n– The decision highlights specific investigative deficiencies that make an investigation ineffective: relying solely on police accounts, failing to grant victim status, and making repeated identical decisions despite court criticism<\/p>\n