Communicated on 16 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 56669/18 Anna Leonidivna OKSUZOGLU against Ukraine lodged on 10 November 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Anna Leonidivna Oksuzoglu , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983. She currently lives in London, United Kingdom.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 18 September 2009 the applicant married A., a citizen of Djibouti. On 26 October 2010 their son was born in Djibouti. Until March 2012 the family lived in that country.

The relationship between the applicant and her husband deteriorated and in March 2012 the applicant and her son left Djibouti for Ukraine.

In 2013 the applicant married another man, a British national.

A. filed a civil lawsuit with the Ukrainian courts, seeking an order for the return of the child to Djibouti. The courts rejected A. ’ s claim, finding that the child had settled well in Ukraine and that the applicant had no intention of returning to Djibouti.

On 9 April 2015 in the town of Brovary (Ukraine) the applicant ’ s son was kidnapped by two unknown men. The child was taken away by force when he and his grandmother were getting out of the lift of the building where they resided.

On 9 April 2015, following the applicant ’ s complaint, the police started criminal proceedings for kidnapping. The plan of investigation included three main working hypotheses. The first one posited that the applicant ’ s son had been kidnapped for a ransom by unknown persons. According to the second and third theories, the child had been abducted by his biological father or at his request.

During April and June 2015, a number of investigative actions were conducted to identify the possible kidnappers. During the subsequent period, the applicant made systematic requests regarding the further progress of the criminal investigation. The requests were ignored or dismissed.

The applicant complained to the court, challenging the inactivity of the investigator and the supervising prosecutor. On 16 May 2017 Brovary local court found that the investigator and the prosecutor in charge of the case had protracted the proceedings. The court instructed them to carry out specific investigative measures and to submit international requests to question the child ’ s father in Djibouti and two other individuals in the UK.

On 27 March 2018 a disciplinary inquiry was held in respect of the investigators in charge of the applicant ’ s case. According to the disciplinary report, two police officers had to be sanctioned with warnings for their failure to ensure a prompt and effective investigation of the case.

On 25 March 2019 the police requested the State Border Service to inform them whether they had any information on the applicant ’ s son and his father crossing the border.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention that the Ukrainian authorities have failed to protect the security and well ‑ being of her son and that the investigation into the kidnapping was ineffective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 2 applicable to the present case? If so, h as there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation to take all necessary steps, including effective preventive and investigative measures, to protect the life of the applicant ’ s child, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (compare Olewnik-Cieplińska and Olewnik v. Poland , no. 20147/15, 5 September 2019)?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation to ensure the well-being and personal integrity of the applicant ’ s child and his reunion with the applicant?