Communicated on 24 August 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 75394/13
Mykola Mykolayovych FESHCHENKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 19 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mykola Mykolayovych Feshchenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Kyiv.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 April 2010 the applicant’s daughter, D., who was nineteen years old at the time, left home and disappeared. On the same day the applicant noticed that all family savings disappeared as well. D. has not been heard from ever since.
On 24 April 2010 the applicant complained to the police that his daughter had disappeared.
On 29 April 2010 the police opened an operative search case file dedicated to the search for D.
On 30 April 2010 the Kyiv Desnyanskyy District Police Department (“the District Police Department”) refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s complaint for lack of a corpus delicti. In their decision the police noted that D. had not been found in the database of unidentified patients and unidentified dead bodies. The police went on to note that the enquiries revealed that D. was prone to alcohol abuse, had ties with antisocial elements, had been having quarrels with her relatives, and had already on a previous occasion left home with her parents’ money. According to the decision, the applicant stated in an interview with the police that, prior to her disappearance on 18 April 2010, D. had tried to incite a relative to steal the applicant’s money and run away.
On 13 September 2010 the police again refused to institute criminal proceedings. No copy of this decision was provided to the Court.
On 17 May 2011 the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office (“the KCPO”) informed the applicant, in response to his complaint, that after review conducted by the prosecutor’s office the decisions of 30 April and 13 September 2010 had been quashed and the materials had been sent back to the District Police Department for further examination.
On 8 June 2011 the District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings in connection with D.’s disappearance on suspicion of false imprisonment and kidnapping.
On 5 August 2011 the applicant wrote to the Minister of the Interior. He indicated that he believed that D. might have been kidnapped and possibly killed by Mr Y., her former boyfriend, to appropriate the money stolen by her. The applicant, referring to the fact that he was a former police officer, indicated that he had received this information from unspecified local police officers at the place where Y. lived. According to the applicant, in an interview with the local police Y. had stated that D. had come to see him on 22 April 2010, informed him that she had stolen money from her father and had invited him to go abroad with her and the stolen money but that he refused and D. left in an unknown direction. The applicant further stated that following D.’s disappearance Y.’s lifestyle had changed dramatically. While before D.’s disappearance Y., being a drug addict, had experienced serious financial difficulties, after the disappearance he had built two houses for himself and his family and acquired two Mercedes cars. The applicant asked that the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with D.’s disappearance be reclassified from kidnapping to murder and the investigation be entrusted to the Central Investigation Department of the Ministry.
On 25 January 2012 the applicant wrote to the head of the Kyiv police referring to the same circumstances as in his letter to the Minister of 5 August 2011 and adding that the police had failed to pursue the leads related to Y., even though he was the last person to have seen D., in particular to search his residence and obtain records of his five phones which, the applicant believed, might contain information about D.’s fate and whereabouts.
On 24 February 2012 the Central Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant that, having reviewed the state of the investigation in the case, the Department had found that the steps taken in the case had been insufficient and directed the Kyiv police to discipline the officers at fault and to take more active steps to further the investigation.
On 19 March 2012 the KCPO informed the applicant, in response to his complaint concerning inadequate investigation, that it had instructed the police to take more active steps to further the investigation.
On 6 November 2012 the KCPO informed the applicant, in response to his new complaint, that it had found that the investigation of the case had been inadequate and that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the police officers in charge of the case. The KCPO also stated that it had given instructions to the police concerning additional investigative actions and search activities which needed to be conducted in order to advance the investigation. It further informed the applicant that the possibility of reclassification of the case as a murder case would be considered after the completion of the additional steps indicated by the KCPO. The KCPO assured the applicant that it would keep the progress of the investigation under review.
On 16 and 21 November 2012 the KCPO sent the applicant two more letters the contents of which were similar to the letter of 6 November 2012.
On 3 January 2013 the KCPO informed the applicant that the investigation concerning D.’s disappearance had been suspended on 16 April 2011 but that on 28 December 2012 it had been renewed. The KCPO also stated that it had given instructions to the police concerning the need to conduct a more active investigation.
On 8 April 2013 the KCPO informed the applicant that the investigation was ongoing, that all necessary actions to find D. were being taken, and that the KCPO had given instructions to the police concerning the progress of the investigation.
On 26 July 2013 the Kyiv Region Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that, having examined the operative search case file opened by the police on 29 April 2010, it had found that the police had failed to take appropriate steps to establish D.’s whereabouts. The prosecutor’s office had given instructions to the police concerning the steps needed to correct the omissions.
On 4 June 2014 the KCPO informed the applicant that the investigation was ongoing and the KCPO had given instructions to the investigating authority concerning the need to conduct a more active investigation.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, referring to Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention, that the investigation into the disappearance of his daughter has been ineffective.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, and Girard v. France, no. 22590/04, 30 June 2011), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy