Communicated on 4 May 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 17317/08
Natalya Vitalyevna KABANOVA against Ukraine
lodged on 26 March 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Natalya Vitalyevna Kabanova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Donetsk.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 March 2006 the applicant was hit by a car in the street. She was in the early stages of pregnancy at the time. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital where she was diagnosed with fractures of the left thigh bone and of two bones in the lower portion of her left leg; injuries to the left hand, her head and neck; numerous bruises on her body; and second or third degree traumatic shock. The applicant was treated in the hospital until 7 April 2006 and in June 2006 she had an abortion.
On 25 April and 4 August 2006, 5 February and 23 November 2007, 12 May and 21 August 2009 and 14 May 2010 the police authorities refused to open a criminal investigation on the grounds that the accident had not given rise to a criminal prosecution of the car driver. All those decisions were reversed as unsubstantiated by the supervising prosecutor or the courts and further inquiries were ordered.
On 31 January 2011 an investigator with the Donetsk police initiated criminal proceedings in relation to the traffic accident. In the course of the criminal investigation, the forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant had sustained moderate injuries.
On 27 May and 28 September 2011 the investigator closed the investigation for lack of corpus delicti. The investigator relied in particular on the findings of a technical expert that it had been impossible for the car driver to avoid hitting the applicant. Those decisions were reversed by supervising prosecutors and further investigations were ordered.
On 10 January 2013 criminal proceedings were initiated in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012.
On 26 August 2013 the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti.
On 27 August 2013 the above decision was reversed by the Donetsk regional prosecutor’s office and a further investigation was ordered.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the criminal investigation of the traffic accident in which she was injured was not effective.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does Article 2 of the Convention apply to the present case? If so, has the State complied with the procedural requirements of that Article to carry out an effective investigation?
2. Does Article 3 of the Convention apply to the present case? If so, has the State complied with the procedural requirements of that Article to carry out an effective investigation?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy