Communicated on 22 January 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 11464/12
Leontiy Ivanovych YUKHYMOVYCH
against Ukraine
lodged on 6 January 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Leontiy Ivanovych Yukhymovych, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Lviv, Ukraine.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 February 1999 a private person B. complained to the police that “unknown persons - Igor and Ruslan” had racketeered her and extorted 25,000 United States dollars from her. On 4 March 1999 four police officers set up an ambush in B.’s house. At around 2 p.m. the applicant’s son and Z. also arrived at B.’s house. Police arrested Z. The applicant’s son was shot dead by the police.
On 31 March 1999 the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings into the applicant’s son’s killing.
Between 2000 and 2014 on at least eight occasions the proceedings were terminated and re-opened. In particular, on 25 October 2012 the Galytskyy District Court quashed the decision of 17 February 2012 to terminate the criminal proceedings and remitted the case for additional investigation. The court found that the investigation had been superficial and the necessary investigative steps had not been taken.
On 28 March 2014 the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office again terminated the proceedings for absence of the evidence of crime. It was found that the applicant’s son had threatened the police officers with a gas gun, had been shot once, then had tried to escape again threatening the police with a gun and had been fatally wounded with the second shot.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the court. The proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that his son had been unlawfully shot by a police officer and that the State failed to effectively investigate this incident. The applicant also complains about the length of the proceedings. He invokes Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In particular, did the applicant’s son’s death result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000‑VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy