CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 62993/16 Larisa Arkadyevna NIKITINA against Russia lodged on 7 October 2016 communicated on 25 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged failure of the Russian authorities to provide an adequate and timely response to the death of the applicant’s brother (Mr L.), as required by procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. On 23 November 2012 an ambulance team was called for Mr L. who was lying on the street under alcohol intoxication and was unable to walk unassisted because of a medical condition. The medical team examined him and provided him with basic medical care. Mr L.’s conduct was uncooperative. He refused hospitalisation. The ambulance team left him on the street. Less than thirty minutes later Mr L. died of hypothermia. The investigating authorities seventeen times refused to open a criminal case into the alleged negligence of the ambulance team. Sixteen of those refusals were overruled by a supervising authority for being ill-founded, or quashed by a court. The applicant challenged the most recent refusal before the Promyshlenniy District Court of Orenburg. On 30   December 2015 it dismissed the challenge on the grounds that there had been no elements of criminal offence in the ambulance team’s actions. The Orenburg Regional Court upheld that finding on appeal on 17 March 2016. The appeal judgment was received by the applicant on 7 April 2016. In the meantime, on 7 December 2015, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the allegedly negligent conduct of the ambulance team. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of her complaint under procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, A.V. v. Estonia (dec.), no.   3853/14, §§ 65-75, 29 March 2016, and Dumpe v.   Latvia (dec.), no.   71506/13, §§ 55-77, 16 October 2018)? If yes, has there been a breach of the procedural obligation of the State under Article 2 of the Convention to provide for an adequate and timely response to the death of the applicant’s brother (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no.   56080/13, §§ 214-38, 19 December 2017)?   2.     The parties are invited to provide information about the outcome of the applicant’s civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the allegedly negligent conduct of the ambulance team, and about other important developments in the case, if any. The submissions should be supported by the relevant documents.