CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 octobre 2021

.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 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 13527/13 and 22479/15 Larisa Viktorovna SERDYUKOVA against Russia and Tamara Robertovna MEDVEDEVA against Russia lodged on 18 February 2013 and 25 April 2015 respectively communicated on 22 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the issue of State’s liability for having allegedly put the applicants’ lives at risk and for damage done to their homes and property, as a result of flooding in Pyatigorsk and Krymsk and the State’s alleged negligent failure to take adequate measures in an emergency situation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 2 of the Convention applicable in the present case (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 146, ECHR 2008 (extracts))? In particular, what were the water levels in the areas of the applicants’ homes during the floods of 5   July 2011 in Pyatigorsk (application no.   13527/13) and 6 ‑ 7 July 2012 in Krymsk (application no.   22479/15) and for how long did the water remain at those levels? Did the water levels during the floods in the applicants’ homes and near their homes create an imminent risk to their lives?   2.     Did the authorities take all appropriate measures in their power to safeguard the applicants’ lives for the purposes of Article 2? In particular, did they put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 89, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII and Budayeva and Others v. Russia , cited above, § 129)? Did the authorities, in order to mitigate the risks to the applicants’ lives, take any operational preventive measures, such as providing the public with relevant information and having in place appropriate procedures for identifying shortcomings in the processes concerned and any errors committed by those responsible at different levels (see Öneryıldız , cited above, § 89-90)? Was there any negligent failure on behalf of the authorities to take such measures? In particular:   2.1     Was an emergency warning system in place to organise the evacuation of the population, in the event of a flood? 2.2     What was the condition of the rainwater drainage systems in Pyatigorsk and Krymsk , respectively, at the time of the events in question and in particular, near the applicants’ homes? Did their throughput capacity meet the relevant technical requirements and were they regularly checked and cleared by the relevant maintenance services? 2.3     Were there orders given to evacuate the population from the areas where the applicants’ homes were located, or any warnings given within those territories before the flood? If so, the Government are requested to submit information concerning the content and coverage of those warnings and specify the details of such evacuations.   3.     Were any proceedings (criminal, administrative or other) pursued in connection with the floods in the applicants’ cases? If so, did those proceedings provide the adequate judicial response required in the event of alleged infringements of the right to life so that the authorities could be regarded as having complied with their procedural obligations under Article   2 of the Convention (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia , cited above, §§ 161-165)?   4.     Did the authorities comply with their obligation to take all reasonable and adequate measures to protect the applicants’ homes, within the margin of appreciation afforded to them under Article 8 of the Convention (see Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 17423/05 and   5   others, §§ 212 and   214, 28 February 2012)?   5.     Bearing in mind the States’ wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to comply with their positive obligations and other principles governing a State’s liability for breach of its positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia , cited above, §   175 and Öneryıldız , cited above, § 134), did the authorities take all measures that were reasonable in the circumstances to protect the applicants’ property? Was there any negligent failure on behalf of the authorities to take such measures?   The Government are requested to submit information concerning the legislative and administrative framework for dealing with natural hazards, in particular floods, in the areas of the applicants’ homes and to comment on whether at the relevant time it had been effectively implemented.   The Government are also requested to provide information on the result of the investigation, if any, in both cases and to submit a copy of the investigation files.   As the applicant in application no. 22479/15 was not able to obtain a copy of the judgment of the Krymsk District Court of the Krasnodar Region of 26 June 2014, the Government furthermore are requested to provide a copy of that judgment.       APPENDIX     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence 1. 13527/13 18/02/2013 Larisa Viktorovna SERDYUKOVA 1955 Pyatigorsk 2. 22479/15 25/04/2015 Tamara Robertovna MEDVEDEVA 1987 Novokuznetsk