CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 22 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 29947/17 Anastasiya Oleksandrivna MOSKALYUK against Ukraine lodged on 12 April 2017 communicated on 4 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged abduction and murder of the applicant’s mother and stepfather by servicemen of the territorial defence forces and the lack of effective investigation into those events, which took place in the town of Shchastya (Luhansk Region) being under control of the Ukrainian Government at the material time. The applicant relies, inter alia , on Article 2 and Article 5   §   1 of the Convention. On 16 February 2015, the applicant’s mother and her husband were allegedly kidnapped and killed by E. and several other members of a military volunteer battalion. Criminal proceedings were instituted on account of the above incident, within the framework of which E. was arrested. In February 2016, the criminal case was transmitted to the court for trial. Since that time, the case, due to different reasons, has been circulating between the prosecutor’s office and the courts without being considered on the merits. In August 2016, E. was released on bail. According to the applicant, no criminal proceedings were opened against E.’s accomplices.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s relatives’ right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? Is the State responsible for the death of the applicant’s relatives (see Avşar v. Turkey , no. 25657/94, §§   413 ­ 16, ECHR 2001‑VII)? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? 3.     Have the applicant’s relatives been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention?