FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 19288/10
Oleksandr Kostyantynovych YAKOVENKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 25 March 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Kostyantynovych Yakovenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Donetsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr O. Pushkar, a lawyer practising in Romny.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 April 2008 the applicant’s mother and stepfather, an elderly couple, died in their flat as a result of gas poisoning.
On 2 July 2008, the Romny Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”) refused to open an investigation in connection with the accident. The prosecutor’s office found that the accident had happened due to the clogged chimney in the flat. The exact time and reason why the chimney was clogged could not be established. The material assembled in the course of the “pre-investigation” enquiries had been insufficient to bring charges against the officials of the house maintenance organisation responsible for the clearance of the chimneys in that building.
On 15 September, 30 October 2008, 26 January, 3 July and 20 October 2009 the prosecutor’s office adopted similar decisions refusing to open investigation.
All these decisions were quashed by the Romny District Court as unfounded and further “pre-investigation” enquiries were ordered. In particular, on 24 February 2010 the court quashed the last prosecutor’s office decision of 20 October 2009. The court considered that the material available in the case file suggested that the officials of the house maintenance organisation had failed to carry out periodic inspections of the chimneys in the applicant’s relatives’ flat while the evidence justifying their failure to inspect the chimney was contradictory and unreliable.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 45, 15 May 2012).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in connection with the death of his close relatives.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, could the applicant institute non-criminal proceedings seeking redress on account of the accident? If so, would the non-criminal forum be effective in the light of the conclusions reached by the prosecutor’s office?
The Government are invited to provide examples of the domestic case law.
2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, were the domestic proceedings in the present cases in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide information and relevant material concerning the domestic proceedings in the present case after 24 February 2010.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy