Oleksandr Mykolayovych SYLENOK and Others v Ukraine - 20988/02 [2009] ECHR 1196 (7 July 2009)

Oleksandr Mykolayovych SYLENOK and Others v Ukraine - 20988/02 [2009] ECHR 1196 (7 July 2009)

The Court found that it could not determine the admissibility of the complaints regarding the first applicant's alleged police beating and lack of effective investigation, and the third applicant's non-enforcement of a judgment and lack of effective remedies, and adjourned these issues. The remainder of the application was declared manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.

Citation
[2009] ECHR 1196
Parties
First Applicant: Oleksandr Mykolayovych Sylenok; Second Applicant: Svitlana Dmytriyvna Mashkina; Third Applicant: Tekhnoservis-Plus; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Partial Decision as to Admissibility
Outcome
Partial admissibility decision; part of the application adjourned, remainder inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Police Brutality, Right to Effective Remedy, Unlawful Detention, Non Enforcement of Judgments, Property Rights, Right to Fair Trial, Procedural Violations, Abuse of Process
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Police Brutality Right to Effective Remedy Unlawful Detention Non Enforcement of Judgments +4 more

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oleksandr Mykolayovych Sylenok

First Applicant

Svitlana Dmytriyvna Mashkina

Second Applicant

Tekhnoservis-Plus

Third Applicant

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Partial Decision as to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first applicant was subjected to police brutality and whether there was an effective investigation (Articles 3 and 13 ECHR)
  2. 2 Whether the third applicant was denied enforcement of a judgment in its favour and effective remedies (Articles 6 §1 and 13 ECHR, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
  3. 3 Whether the remainder of the applicants' complaints disclosed any appearance of a violation of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that it could not determine the admissibility of the complaints regarding the first applicant's alleged police beating and lack of effective investigation, and the third applicant's non-enforcement of a judgment and lack of effective remedies, and adjourned these issues. The remainder of the application was declared manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Partial admissibility decision; part of the application adjourned, remainder inadmissible.

Orders

  • Adjourned examination of complaints concerning first applicant's alleged police beating and lack of effective investigation (Articles 3 and 13 ECHR)
  • Adjourned examination of complaints concerning non-enforcement of judgment in favour of third applicant and lack of effective remedies (Articles 6 §1 and 13 ECHR, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)