Information Note on the Court’s case-law 6
May 1999
Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 41488/98
Decision 18.5.1999 [Section IV]
Article 2
Article 2-1
Life
Death of applicant’s partner during police custody and alleged lack of proper investigation into death: admissible
Article 34
Victim
Application by a woman who had been lived for over 12 years with a person who died in police custody: admissible
In September 1994, T., of Roma origins and with whom the applicant lived, was arrested on suspicion of theft. He died in police custody some 12 hours after his arrest. A criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death was launched at the regional investigator’s initiative. According to the autopsy, his death was caused by haemorrhages in the armpits, the arms and the left buttocks. In December 1995, the applicant's lawyer unsuccessfully urged the investigator to speed up the investigation. The lawyer filed a request with the prosecutor, but the latter issued an order suspending the criminal proceedings due to lack of evidence. However, following a request of the applicant in September 1996, the prosecutor issued an order reopening the investigation. The investigator allegedly refused to provide the applicant's lawyer with any information on the investigation. The lawyer filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office but received no answer. The prosecutor eventually replied to a second request to have the investigator removed by saying that no further investigation would be carried out as there were no clues as to the identity of the offender. There was no formal decision and in December 1997 the investigator told the lawyer that the investigation had not been given up.
Article 34: It has always been considered that a parent, a sibling or a nephew of a person whose death is alleged to engage the responsibility of the respondent Government may claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of Article 2 even where closer relatives, such as the deceased person’s children, have not submitted applications. In all these cases, the question whether the applicant was the legal heir of the deceased person was without relevance. In the present case, the applicant lived with T. as a married couple for over 12 years and they had children together. Thus, there is no doubt that the applicant may claim to be a victim of alleged violations of the Convention as regards the death of T. and the subsequent investigation. Furthermore, a couple who have lived together for many years constitute a family for the purpose of Article 8 and are entitled to protection of the Convention notwithstanding the fact that their relationship exists outside marriage. Therefore, there is no valid reason to distinguish the applicant’s situation from that of a spouse.
Admissible under Articles 2, 6, 13 and 14.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy