CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 février 2025

.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 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18846/24 Kyriakos NICOLAOU against Cyprus lodged on 29 June 2024 communicated on 26 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the investigation of a road incident on 1   September 2012 in which a car collided with a motorcycle. The applicant, a passenger on the motorcycle, sustained serious injuries, while the motorcycle driver died. Another car driven by an unidentified woman was also involved, but after the incident she drove away. An investigation by the police in 2012 did not lead to any prosecution or the identification of the woman. In 2015 the Nicosia District Court issued the coroner’s inquest into the motorcycle driver’s death, determining the circumstances of the accident. In 2023 – after rumours in the media concerning the identity of the unidentified woman – the Attorney General appointed a team of police investigators to re-examine the circumstances of the accident as well as examine any potential inadequacies in the original investigation. On 29 February 2024 the Attorney General issued a press statement announcing the results of the re-examination. He concluded that the driver of the colliding car should not be prosecuted. Further, he highlighted inadequacies in the original investigation specifically relating to the identification of the unknown woman and suggested that one police officer involved in the initial investigation should be criminally prosecuted. It remains unclear whether this has been pursued by the domestic authorities. The applicant complains under the procedural limb of Article 2 about the original and subsequent investigation carried out by the authorities and alleges that they were inadequate and ineffective. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the authorities failed to follow an obvious line of inquiry thus undermining the investigation’s ability to establish the circumstances of the case and the identity of those responsible. The applicant further alleges under Article   13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy at his disposal regarding his complaint under Article 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the positive obligations of the respondent State under Article 2 of the Convention engaged in the circumstances of the present case (see, among other authorities, Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, §§   139-45, 25 June 2019, and Igor Shevchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   22737/04, §   41, 12   January 2012)?   2.     If the above is answered in the affirmative, having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention ( see   Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 74, ECHR 2004-XI; Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII; Igor Shevchenko , cited above, § 56; and Kotelnikov v. Russia , no. 45104/05, §§ 99-101, 12 July 2016)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide the Court with copies of the following documents:   The Government are requested to provide a copy of the investigation file(s) and all related documents, in particular, all relevant reports, decisions, correspondence, or other official documents relating to the incident which seriously injured the applicant and the two official investigations which ensued.   The applicant is requested to provide: (a) copies of medical certificates or documents relating to his injuries as a result of the incident; and (b) a legible copy of his statement to the police dated 8 December 2012 (Annex 4 to the application form).