The ECHR found Ukraine responsible for the beating of a man by off-duty police officers

On May 28, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights in the case KOVALENKO v. UKRAINE ruled that Ukraine violated Article 3 of the Convention regarding the applicant, who was brutally beaten in 2008 in Irpin by a group of individuals, including two police officers who were off-duty at the time of the conflict.

Circumstances of the case

The applicant claimed that on February 17, 2008, near the entrance to a multi-storey building, he and his friends were attacked by a group of young men celebrating a birthday. Among the attackers were two employees of the Irpin police department who were off-duty. According to the applicant, one of them hit him on the head with a telescopic metal baton, after which other participants in the incident beat him. He suffered head injuries, lost consciousness, and was later detained by the patrol police. Afterwards, he was forced to sign a statement alleging hooliganism.

The government, for its part, argued that the applicant himself used a knife and caused injuries to the police officers and other participants in the conflict, and that his injuries were minor.

The medical findings in the case were contradictory: some hospitals recorded minor injuries, while others established a skull fracture that could have been life-threatening. National authorities repeatedly refused to open a criminal case regarding the ill-treatment of the applicant during 2008–2011. In total, such refusals were made 14 times.

A full investigation was only initiated in 2014. However, in 2019, the proceedings were closed due to lack of evidence.

Conclusions of the ECHR

The Court concluded that the case materials contained sufficiently strong, clear, and consistent evidence that the police officers, although off-duty, were effectively exercising police powers and acted by virtue of their official status. Therefore, the Court rejected the Government's objections regarding the non-applicability of state responsibility to them and found that their actions were not purely private but fell under state responsibility.

Next, the Court assessed whether the use of force by these individuals was strictly necessary under the specific circumstances. The ECHR noted that due to the absence of clear conclusions by national courts and contradictory explanations from the parties, the Court must first verify whether a proper investigation of the incident was conducted and whether national authorities fulfilled their duty to effectively establish the circumstances of the event.

The Court noted that in response to the applicant's complaint about the use of a baton, the police ordered an additional forensic medical examination. At the same time, the expert indicated that the medical documentation did not contain descriptions of injuries confirming beating with a baton; however, this conclusion was inconsistent with other medical materials recording a skull fracture, as well as eyewitness testimonies reporting the use of an expandable baton by an officer during the conflict. Despite this, investigative authorities did not provide complete interrogation materials of the suspects, which did not allow establishing whether instructions from the senior prosecutor regarding clarifying the circumstances of baton use and the nature of the blows were followed.

The ECHR pointed out that the applicant was granted victim status only several years after the event, and the subsequent investigation was practically not accompanied by active investigative actions — after interrogations, it was reduced to formal procedural steps and ultimately closed due to lack of evidence. Under such conditions, the Court concluded that the investigation did not demonstrate genuine efforts to establish the circumstances of the event and was not based on sufficiently substantiated conclusions.

The Court also emphasized that the loss of key case materials, including medical documentation and materials from another related proceeding, significantly complicated the establishment of the truth and negatively affected the effectiveness of the investigation, which is an obligation of the state under Article 3 of the Convention.

Referring to previously established shortcomings of the investigation — its ineffectiveness, lack of proper and timely investigative actions, as well as the authorities' many-year refusal to open a criminal case regarding the applicant's bodily injuries — the Court concluded that such circumstances warrant negative conclusions.

As a result, the Court found proven that it was the actions of the off-duty police officers that caused the applicant's serious bodily injuries and did not constitute lawful and necessary use of force under the specific circumstances.

Assessing all available evidence as a whole, the Court established that on the night of the event these police officers inflicted serious bodily injuries on the applicant, acting at least partly in connection with their official status — before and during the arrival of patrol units. At the same time, the state did not ensure an effective investigation of complaints regarding ill-treatment.

Additionally, the applicant requested €12,862.50 in compensation for legal costs in Strasbourg, including preparation of the application and response to the Government's observations. The applicant submitted a legal aid contract and a report on work performed totaling 160 hours. The contract stipulated that payment would only be made if compensation was awarded by the Court and in the amount determined by it.

The Government objected, stating that the claimed amount was excessive.

The Court ruled that the respondent state must pay the applicant within three months €8,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and €3,000 for reimbursement of legal costs.

The ECHR confirmed that even when a police officer is formally off-duty, the state bears responsibility for his actions if he uses his official status or powers of authority. The Court also emphasized that a many-year formal investigation without real investigative actions constitutes a separate violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay informed about the most important events.