CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 12 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } THIRD SECTION Application no. 35279/10 Rostislav Ivanovich MELNICHUK and Alla Rostislavovna LYANA against Romania lodged on 12 June 2010     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the Court competent ratione temporis to analyse the applicants’ complaints under the procedural head of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the shooting and subsequent death of their wife and mother respectively?   2.     If so, did the applicants lodge the application within the six-month time-limit (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III and Stanimirović v. Serbia , no. 26088/06, §§ 30-33, 18 October 2011)?   3.     If so, did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities satisfy the conditions of adequacy and promptness required under the procedural head of Article 2 of the Convention?