Communicated on 1 June 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 12991/10
Yekaterina Yakovlevna MANDRYKA
against Ukraine
lodged on 17 February 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Yekaterina Yakovlevna Mandryka, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Kramatorsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 November 2005 the car driven by the applicant’s son Mr K. collided with a lorry. K. and the passengers of his car died while the lorry driver, Mr A., survived.
On 29 December 2005 a police investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that K. had caused the collision. On 10 January 2006 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the DRPO”) quashed this decision and remitted the materials to the police for further examination.
On 10 July 2006 the police investigator again refused to institute proceedings on the same grounds.
On 17 August 2006 the DRPO quashed the decision and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of a breach of road traffic rules which had caused death. It found that the police investigator had not taken all the steps available to establish the mechanism through which the collision had occurred.
On 20 September 2006 the police rejected the applicant lawyer’s request for a copy of the decision to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not been assigned the status of a victim.
On 2 June 2007 the investigator ordered, at the applicant’s insistence, an opinion of a commission of forensic experts concerning the causes of the collision.
On 30 July 2009 the experts produced their report, concluding that K. had caused the accident.
On 25 August 2009 the investigator, having regard in particular to the expert report, found it established that the collision had been caused by K. and discontinued criminal proceedings with respect to the lorry driver, A., for lack of corpus delicti.
On 27 November 2009 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings on the ground that K., the likely perpetrator, had died. On 1 December 2009 the DRPO quashed this decision.
On 15 October 2010 the criminal proceedings were again discontinued on the same grounds.
On 27 February 2012 the police rejected the applicant’s request for copies of the reports of expert examinations in the case file because the applicant had not been assigned the status of the victim in the proceedings. The police went on to state that the applicant could learn the conclusions of those examinations from the copy of the decision of 15 October 2010 which had been sent to her.
On 16 March 2012 the DRPO quashed the decision of 15 October 2010.
On 19 March 2013 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti.
On 21 March 2013 the DRPO informed the applicant that it had quashed the decision of 19 March 2013 and that the investigation was pending.
The proceedings appear to be still pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the State failed to investigate effectively the death of her son.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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 paragraph 50 of Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, 3 November 2011), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
2. In particular, did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition and was the applicant, as the victim’s next of kin, involved in the procedure to an extent sufficient for safeguarding her legitimate interests?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy