BASENKO v. UKRAINE - 24213/08 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fifth Section)) [2015] ECHR 1040 (26 November 2015)

BASENKO v. UKRAINE - 24213/08 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fifth Section)) [2015] ECHR 1040 (26 November 2015)

The State failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment, did not ensure expediency or effective access to the investigative procedure, and the acts of the ticket inspector were imputable to the State as he exercised state powers. The applicant was denied an effective remedy due to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ECHR 1040
Parties
Applicant: Aleksandr Anatolyevich Basenko; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
26 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment
Outcome
application allowed; violations found
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR, State Responsibility, Effective Remedy, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, Procedural Obligations, Municipal Liability
Human Rights Criminal Law Civil Law Article 3 ECHR Article 13 ECHR State Responsibility Effective Remedy Inhuman and Degrading Treatment +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aleksandr Anatolyevich Basenko

Applicant

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant suffered inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment was effective
  3. 3 Whether the acts of the ticket inspector are imputable to the State

Ratio Decidendi

The State failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment, did not ensure expediency or effective access to the investigative procedure, and the acts of the ticket inspector were imputable to the State as he exercised state powers. The applicant was denied an effective remedy due to delays and exclusion from proceedings.

Court Disposition

application allowed; violations found

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage within three months, plus any tax.
  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 3,684 for costs and expenses within three months, plus any tax, to be transferred to applicant's representative's law firm.