CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40298/06 Petro Grygorovych SHULGA against Ukraine lodged on 29 September 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Petro Grygorovych Shulga, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Baybuzy, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Proceedings related to the death of the applicant’s wife in a traffic accident On 26 September 2003 the applicant’s wife, while riding a bicycle, was hit by a car and died on the spot. According to the applicant, the driver, P., paid him 1,500 Ukrainian hryvnias (around 240 euros) to cover the funeral expenses. a.     Criminal proceedings On 29 September 2003 criminal proceedings into the accident were initiated. On 26 November 2003 they were terminated for absence of evidence of a crime. It was established that P. had been temporarily blinded by the long-distance headlights of an approaching car. Between November 2003 and November 2005 the criminal proceedings were resumed and subsequently terminated. The applicant inquired about the course of the proceedings on numerous occasions. By letter of 3 November 2005 the Cherkassy Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine ( Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Черкаській області ) informed the applicant that the criminal proceedings instituted on 29 September 2003, after some investigation steps had been taken and a forensic automobile technical examination had been performed, were terminated for absence of evidence of a crime. This decision was later quashed. The investigation officer, K., in charge of the case, was protracting the proceedings and was disciplinarily sanctioned. The newly appointed investigation officer, M., ordered a repeated forensic automobile technical examination. On 1 November 2005, considering the results of this examination, the proceedings were terminated again for lack of evidence of a crime. According to the applicant the proceedings were again re-instituted on 23   April 2006. By letter of 7 March 2007 the Cherkassy Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that a forensic automobile technical examination was pending in his case.   The applicant stated that since 2009 he did not inquire about the proceedings since the investigation had evidently became ineffective. By letter of 23 May 2012 the applicant’s mother-in-law was informed that the proceedings were still pending and that an automobile technical forensic examination was ordered in the case. b.     Civil proceedings On 10 August and 22 September 2004 the applicant brought two repeated claims for damages against P. On 14 September and 28 October 2004 the Cherkassy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims for procedural shortcomings. The applicant neither appealed against these decisions nor submitted new claims in compliance with procedural requirements. 2.     The applicant’s participation in local elections On 26 March 2006 the applicant took part in the local elections as a candidate to the position of the head of the village and came second with three votes less. On 3 April 2006 the Cherkasskyy District Court invalidated the results of the elections. On 6 April 2006 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 3 April 2006 and rejected the applicant’s complaint that some of the voters had been prevented from voting. On 25   May 2006 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation as the decision of 6   April   2006 was not subject to appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention that the investigation into the death of his wife was not effective and that the proceedings in his civil case were unfair. He also submits under Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 that both the elections and the proceedings aimed to challenge the results of that elections were not fair and discriminatory.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the State authorities under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation as required by Article 2 of the Convention in the present case? If yes, was there an effective investigation into the circumstances of the   accident, as required by the procedural obligations imposed by Article   2 of the Convention?