CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 8 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22714/19 Stojanka ABRAMOV against Croatia lodged on 19 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s son. The applicant’s son died in 2009 after being beaten up on the street by a private party. In 2010 the competent prosecutor indicted the latter person for murder and two other persons for failing to provide assistance to the applicant’s son whose life had been in danger. In 2014 the first-instance court found the accused guilty as charged, and sentenced the person who had beaten up the applicant’s son to twelve years’ imprisonment, and the two other persons to three months’ and five months’ imprisonment, respectively. In 2016 the second-instance court quashed the first-instance judgment in the part concerning the two persons who had been convicted for failing to provide assistance to the applicant’s son and remitted the case to the first-instance court. In 2017 the first-instance court terminated the proceedings against them on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which she complained about the lack of an adequate procedural response of the domestic authorities to the death of her son. In 2018 the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the case did not concern the determination of her civil rights or the criminal charge against her. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, about the lack of an effective procedural response by the domestic authorities into the death of her son. She alleges that the domestic courts’ inactivity led to the impunity of the persons who had been responsible for her son’s death. The complaint is to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see   Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), did the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention, in particular having regard to its duration of more than eight years and the fact that the prosecution of the persons charged with failing to provide assistance to the applicant’s son became time-barred?