CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 947 10.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Dudnyk v. Ukraine (application no. 17985/04)   INEFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION INTO A DEATH RESULTING FROM AN ASSAULT   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Ms Kateryna Dudnyk, is a Ukranian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Chapayivka.   On 30 May 2000 an unidentified individual broke the skull of Ms Dundyk’s son, in the corridor of a dormitory at Cherkasy Technological University (the University). He died nine days later without regaining consciousness. In June 2000 criminal proceedings were brought by the police into a suspected offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in death. Between September 2000 and October 2004 the investigation was suspended several times for failure to identify the perpetrator. On a number of occasions specific investigative steps were ordered by the prosecution service but not carried out, fully or partially, by the investigators. Representatives of the prosecution and the police acknowledged a few times to the applicant that the investigation into the death of her son had been inadequate. In all, the authorities submitted that they carried out 47 interviews, one confrontation and two line-ups; two medical assessments were also ordered. The criminal proceedings are currently pending.   In 2003 Ms Dudnyk brought civil proceedings for damages against the University. The courts found that her son was injured through no fault of the University and dismissed her claims.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 2, Ms Dudnyk complained of the authorities’ failure to find and punish those responsible for her son’s wounding and subsequent death.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8   May 2004 .   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Lichtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges , Mykhaylo Buromenskiy (Ukraine), ad hoc judge , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that the investigation was still pending. Furthermore, apart from information about the number of interviews, line-ups and expert assessments, the authorities had not provided any pertinent document about who had been questioned, what investigative versions had been examined and what information had been obtained as a result of the measures taken. In addition, the instructions given by the prosecutors had not always been followed and the delays in the investigation had diminished significantly the prospects of its successful completion. The Court also noted that the authorities had themselves acknowledged several times that the investigation had been seriously flawed. The Court concluded that the Ukranian authorities had failed to do everything necessary and possible in order to identify those responsible for the wounding and death of Mr Dudnyk’s son, in violation of Article 2.   The Court dismissed Ms Dudnyk’s complaint of the unfairness of the civil proceedings she brought against the University as it found that those complaints had not been substantiated.   The applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention and, accordingly, the Court did not award her any sum on that account.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.