CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48229/10 Mariya Ivanivna PADURA against Ukraine lodged on 2 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Mariya Ivanivna Padura, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Novoyavorivsk, Lviv Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In the late evening of 1   April 2006 the applicant’s husband and his friend were attacked in a street of Novoyavorivsk by three young men, K., Dz. and Sh. The applicant’s husband was severely beaten up and his skull was fractured. His friend sustained bruises and abrasions to his face, nose fracture, brain concussion and other less serious injuries. On 11 April 2006 the investigator of the Yavorivsk District Police Department opened an investigation under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code noting that a group of persons conducted disorderly in a public place. On 28 April 2006 the investigator reclassified the case under Article 296 §   1 of the Criminal Code mentioning only K. who had behaved disorderly. On the same day K. was charged with the crime provided for in Article 296 §   1 of the Criminal Code. On 29 May 2006 the investigator additionally charged K. under Article   121 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury on the applicant’s husband. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a civil claim against the accused for damages caused by the crime. The materials concerning the civil claim were joined to the criminal case. On 30 May 2006 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings under Article 121 of the Criminal Code against Dz. and Sh. noting that they had not inflicted any injuries on the applicant’s husband and had been standing nearby during the incident. On 12 June 2006 the Yavoriv District Court of Lviv Region (“the District Court”) committed K. for trial. On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code were also instituted against Dz. for the reason that on 1   April 2006 Dz. had sworn at the friend of the applicant’s husband and inflicted minor bodily injuries on him. That case was also referred to the District Court for trial. On 27 July 2006 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings against Sh. under Article 296   of the Criminal Code noting that the latter had not done anything wrong during the incident. On 31 July 2006 the applicant’s husband died as a result of the skull injury sustained on 1 April 2006. On 3 October 2006 the District Court consolidated the criminal cases against K. and Dz. in a single set of proceedings. On 16 March 2007 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation after finding that the facts suggested that the defendants should be charged with more serious crimes. On 7 May 2007 the investigator charged Dz. with the crime provided for in Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. K. was charged with the crimes provided for in Articles 121 § 2 and 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The case was then referred to the District Court. On 3 July 2008 the District Court issued an arrest warrant in respect of K. after finding that he had failed to appear for two court hearings without a valid reason and his whereabouts were unknown. On 31 July 2008 K. was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention facility. On 23 December 2008 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation after finding that the investigator had not clarified the role of the two defendants in the incident. Moreover, the refusal to open criminal proceedings against Sh. had been groundless. The District Court further released K. under a written obligation not to abscond. On 3 April 2009 the Lviv Region Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 23 December 2008 noting that the District Court had failed to properly consider the issue of preventive measure in respect of K. On 16 June 2009 the District Court resumed the proceedings. On 23 May 2012 the District Court found K. guilty of crime provided for in Article 121 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that K. should pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the victims of the crime. The charges against Dz. and K. under Article 296   §   2 of the Criminal Code were dropped as time-barred. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Criminal Code of Ukraine of 5 April 2001 Article 121 of the Code provides as follows: “Article 121.     Intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury 1.     Intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury, that is intentional bodily injury which is dangerous to life ..., shall be punishable by imprisonment for the period from five to eight years. 2.     Intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury, if ... committed by a group of individuals, ... or if that injury caused the victim’s death, shall be punishable by imprisonment for the period from seven to ten years.” Article 296 of the Code provides as follows: “Article 296. Disorderly conduct 1.     Disorderly conduct, namely serious breach of public order motivated by flagrant disrespect of the community, combined with particular impudence and exceptional cynicism, shall be punishable by a fine of between five hundred to one thousand times the tax-free monthly income or by up to six months’ arrest, or by up to five years’ restriction of liberty. 2.     The same acts, if committed by a group of individuals, shall be punishable by up to five years’ restriction of liberty or by up to four years’ imprisonment. ...” COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against the persons involved in the death of the applicant’s husband have not been effective. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the determination of her civil claim within the criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, were the domestic proceedings in the present case in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Was the length of the domestic proceedings in the present case contrary to the requirements of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal effective compensatory remedy for her complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide a chronological list of all procedural measures (pre-investigative, investigative and judicial measures) taken in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Articles 2 of the Convention and copies of the relevant procedural decisions and other documents, including the materials concerning the participation of Sh. in the incident.