CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s27129D8D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:12pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 46797/08 Tadeusz KALICKI against Poland lodged on 24 September 2008`   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tadeusz Kalicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Wieliczka. A.     The investigation into the circumstances of J.K’s death The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s brother J.K. worked as a night guard at a bus terminus in Kraków. On 12 November 2003, around 4 am., his clothes caught fire during his sleep. The fire alarmed drivers at the station, who managed to extinguish it. J.K. was subsequently taken to hospital. However due to his serious injuries he died on 26 November 2003. On 31 December 2004 the applicant was informed that the Kraków District Prosecutor had discontinued the investigation into the circumstances of J.K.’s death. The applicant submits that this was the first time he found out that any investigation had been conducted. During the investigation it was established that J.K. must have either fallen asleep or fainted and that his clothes had caught fire when they came into contact with an electric heater. The prosecutor concluded that it had been an unfortunate accident and that no offence had been committed. On 24 January 2005 the applicant appealed. He argued that the prosecution authorities had failed to establish the circumstances of his brother’s accident. He submitted that witnesses gave different versions of the events. In addition it had not been established how J.K’s clothes could have caught fire and where the electric heater had been placed. He further stressed that J.K. suffered from serious diabetes and should not have been allowed to work night shifts. On 25 May 2005 the Kraków Regional Police Commandant, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, confirmed that the investigation into the circumstances of J.K.’s death had indeed been lengthy. The officer in charge had already been disciplined. On 22 August 2005 the applicant again complained to the Kraków Regional Prosecutor about delays in the proceedings. Subsequently, on 19   October 2005 he complained to the Kraków Appeal Prosecutor about the fact that he had not had any reply from the Regional Prosecutor. On 21 November 2005 the Kraków Appeal Prosecutor confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. He further informed him that the Regional Prosecutor had been reproached for not having replied to the applicant’s complaint in a timely manner. On 29 November 2005 the Kraków District Prosecutor reopened the investigation into the circumstances of J.K.’s death. On 30 December 2005 the Kraków District Prosecutor decided to sever the charges against the police officers responsible for securing evidence on the day of J.K.’s accident and deal with them in a separate set of proceedings (see section B.) On 28 November 2006 in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the delays in the proceedings, the District Prosecutor informed the applicant that the delays had been caused by the fact that the prosecutor in charge had been promoted to the Regional Prosecutor’s office. The proceedings were discontinued on an unknown later date. B.     Complaints against the police On 22 April 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about actions taken by the police on 12 November 2003. He maintained that the police officers who intervened on the scene had acted incompetently and breached their professional duties. On 14 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Chief Police Commandant in Warsaw about the actions taken by the local police. On 24 January 2006 the Kraków District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, finding that no offence had been committed. The prosecutor established that on the night of the accident, the police patrol arrived at the scene around 4.30 am. The officers concentrated on helping J.K. The detective, who arrived later, examined the room with the help of the company’s health and safety inspector, a certain S.S. On 27 February 2006 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He maintained that the detective arrived at the scene 6   hours after the accident had taken place. In addition, he questioned the fact that the detective was assisted by S.S. – the company’s employee. On 28 November 2006 the Kraków District Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and returned the case to the prosecution services. In particular, it instructed the prosecutor to obtain evidence from S.S. and a certain W.D. and to verify the actions taken by the police in view of the applicable procedures. On 23 January 2007 the Kraków District Prosecutor again discontinued the proceedings into the alleged failure of police officers to comply with their duties. The prosecutor heard evidence from S.S. and W.D. She repeated the reasons given in the decision of 24 January 2006 and considered that the police actions complied with the applicable procedures and that no offence had been committed. On 5 February 2007 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. On 19 March 2007 the Kraków Regional Prosecutor quashed the decision of 23 January 2007 and returned the case to the District Prosecutor to continue the investigation. He considered that the District Prosecutor failed to comply with the court’s instructions and failed to analyse whether all intervening officers had followed the applicable procedures. On 16 October 2007 the District Prosecutor heard evidence from a certain R.P. – one of the police officers participating in the intervention on 12 November 2003. On 31 January 2008 the Kraków District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation. The prosecutor established that no offence had been committed as regards the alleged breach of professional duties and that there was not enough evidence substantiating the allegations that the police officers had falsified evidence. The applicant appealed. On 14 April 2008 the Kraków District Court upheld the prosecutor’s findings. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to take reasonable steps in order to clarify the circumstances of his brother’s death. 2.     He further complains invoking Article 6 of the Convention about delays and the ineffectiveness of the investigation. 3.     Lastly, referring to Article 3 of the Convention he alleged that he had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with the investigation into his brother’s death. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, among other authorities, Weber and Others v. Poland , no. 23039/02, §§ 64-66, 27   April 2010) was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in compliance with the procedural obligations of the State under Article 2 of the Convention?