CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35523/06 Natalya Viktorovna ISAYEVA against Ukraine lodged on 22 August 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS In 1998 during her stay at a Slavyanoserbskiy Psychoneurologic Asylum (“the Asylum”), the applicant, who has a first degree disability since her childhood, was placed in one room with B. On 2 April 1998 B. inflicted grievous bodily harm on the applicant. The applicant sustained, among other things, brain concussion, and had a fraction of both jaws, a nose fraction and numerous lacerated wounds on the face. On 5 May 1998 the Slavyanoserbskiy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the Asylum employees. In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the court against the Asylum claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicant requested the court to institute criminal proceedings. By the decisions of 9 December 2004 and 3 August 2005 the Zhovtnevyy District Court and the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal rejected this request since B. had already died and the applicant did not appeal against the decision of 5 May 1998. Moreover, the civil proceedings in the case were still pending. On 31 March 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal since the above decisions were not subject to appeal. On 3 October 2006 the Zhovtnevyy District Court awarded the applicant 30,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage (approximately 4,500 Euros (EUR) at the material time). The applicant appealed against it but then withdraw her appeal. In December 2006 a prosecutor’s office addressed a letter to the Asylum. It stated that because of a breach of labour safety regulations, the applicant’s constitutional rights had been breached. In particular, it was noted that there had been no internal investigation into the incident. In 2008 the applicant instituted new set of proceedings against the Asylum claiming compensation for pecuniary damage. On 15 June 2012 the Zhovtnevyy District Court found for the applicant. On 23 October 2012 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 30 January 2013 the Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Cases quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. The proceedings are still pending.   QUESTION Did the respondent State comply with its duties under Article 3 of the Convention by setting up of an effective system capable of holding accountable those responsible for the injuries sustained by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Dodov v. Bulgaria , no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008)?