Published on 8 June 2026
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 47091/20
Tetyana Dmytrivna KOZHOKAR and Others
against Ukraine
lodged on 14 October 2020
communicated on 20 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicants’ complaints concerning domestic authorities’ investigation into allegations of harassment raised by the fourth applicant and the decision-making process regarding visiting rights of the father of the second and third applicants (Article 8 of the Convention).
The first applicant is the mother of the second, third and fourth applicants. The second and third applicants are the first applicant’s children from her marriage with K. The fourth applicant is the first applicant’s daughter from her previous marriage.
In 2018 the applicant and K. were divorced.
On 27 February 2018 the Chernivtsi City Council established that K. could spend time with the second and third applicants every Saturday in the presence of the first applicant.
Subsequently, K. instituted proceedings before the Pershotravnevyy District Court of Chernivtsi against the first applicant requesting the court to allow him to exercise contact with his children without the first applicant’s presence. In the course of those proceedings, the first applicant requested the court to obtain a medical certificate from a hospital proving that the third applicant had started having psychological problems after he had talked to K. She also sought to adduce a certificate proving that K.’s apartment was dangerous for the children. These requests were dismissed by the court.
On 25 June 2019 the Pershotravnevyy District Court ordered that K. be allowed to spend time with his children without the first applicant’s presence, specifying the days of the week and the duration of such contact.
The first applicant appealed on her own behalf to the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal.
On an unspecified date at the end of August 2019 the fourth applicant told the first applicant that K. had sexually harassed her.
On 22 August 2019 the first applicant requested that the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal hear the fourth applicant as a witness. On 30 August 2019 the Court of Appeal refused that request on the ground that the first applicant had not previously sought to have the fourth applicant questioned by the Pershotravnevyy District Court.
On 3 September 2019 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the police requesting the opening of a criminal investigation into the allegations of harassment. An investigation was initiated shortly afterwards.
On 1 October 2019 the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court and modified the days of the week on which K. could see the children in the first applicant’s absence.
On 20 December 2019 the Supreme Court rejected the first applicant’s appeal on points of law.
On 9 December 2025 the first applicant’s lawyer learned that the criminal investigation into the allegations of harassment of the fourth applicant had been discontinued on 10 December 2021 due to the expiration of the statutory time-limit allowed for a pre-trial investigation. The lawyer appealed against that decision.
On 24 December 2025 the Chernivtsi Court found that the investigation had been superficial and that the investigators had failed to take all necessary measures to elucidate the facts. The court, however, noted that according to the legislation, the period allowed for a pre-trial investigation could not be extended, and rejected the first applicant’s appeal against the decision of 10 December 2021.
On 5 January 2026 the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal upheld that decision. No further remedies were available to the applicants.
The applicants complain, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, that the criminal investigation into the allegations of harassment was lengthy and inefficient. They further complain that the courts did not take those allegations into account and refused to hear the fourth applicant as a witness in connection with them.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Did the State comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention as regards the allegations of child sexual abuse in the present case (see M.S. v. Ukraine, no. 2091/13, § 68, 11 July 2017)?
 
2.  Was the judicial decision-making process in establishing the procedure for K.’s access to the children in conformity with the applicants’ right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention (see M.S. v. Ukraine, cited above, § 86)?
 
 
APPENDIX
Application no. 47091/20
 
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Tetyana Dmytrivna KOZHOKAR
1972
Ukrainian
Chernivtsi
2.
Amina Georgiyivna KOZHOKAR
2014
Ukrainian
Chernivtsi
3.
Samuyil Georgiyovych KOZHOKAR
2011
Ukrainian
Chernivtsi
4.
Olga Ivanivna LEVCHUK
2002
Ukrainian
Chernivtsi