Communicated on 13 June 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 29588/11 Tetyana Ivanivna SHEVCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 5 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tetyana Ivanivna Shevchenko, is a Ukrainian national who lives in Kolychivka .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 6 July 2007 the applicant ’ s house, two dependent buildings and two vehicles were destroyed by fire.

1. Civil proceedings

On an unspecified date the applicant initiated court proceedings against a local department of the electricity company and a local branch of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, complaining of the poor maintenance of overhead power lines located opposite her house, which, in her opinion, had caused the fire, and of the allegedly ineffective actions of the fire brigade. The applicant claimed compensation in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

On 8 June 2010 the Chernihiv Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim as unsubstantiated. The court took into account a forensic fire examination, which had established that the fire, which had broken out in one of the dependent buildings and then spread to the house, had been caused by arson. The expert who had conducted the examination had also stated that the burning of the house could have been avoided, had the fire brigade acted in line with the provisions of the Fire Brigade Field Manual of 1970. The court accepted the conclusion that the fire had been caused by arson but disregarded the expert ’ s evaluation of the actions of the fire brigade on the ground that the Fire Brigade Field Manual of 1970 was no longer in force.

The applicant appealed against the above decision to the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal.

On 31 August 2010 the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court but confirmed that the cause of the fire was arson.

The applicant appealed against that decision to the court of cassation.

On 15 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine declined to open cassation proceedings, dismissing the notice of cassation appeal as unsubstantiated.

2. Criminal proceedings

On 6 July 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Chernihiv District Police Department, seeking to have a “pre-investigation” check ( перевірка ) carried out in respect of the fire at her property.

On 9 July 2007 the Chernihiv District Police Department refused to open a criminal case. The police established, on the basis of witness evidence, that the fire had been caused by the power lines located opposite the applicants ’ property, which had been sagging and sparking while swaying in the wind on the night before the fire.

On 17 June 2010 the applicant, referring to the decision of the Chernihiv Court of 8 June 2010, lodged a request with the Chernihiv Prosecutor ’ s Office, seeking to have a criminal case into arson opened.

On 29 June 2010 the Chernihiv Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to open a criminal investigation until the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal had determined the civil case.

On 15 September 2010 the applicant, referring to the decision of the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal of 31 August 2010, lodged a request with the head of the Chernihiv Prosecutor ’ s Office seeking to have a criminal investigation into arson opened.

On 9 March 2017 the applicant lodged a request with the head of Chernihiv Prosecutor ’ s Office, seeking to obtain information about the progress of the criminal case into arson.

On 14 March 2017 the Chernihiv Prosecutor ’ s Office opened a criminal case into arson. The case was assigned to the Chernihiv District Police Department.

On 8 July 2017 the Chernihiv District Police Department closed the criminal proceedings, establishing with the reference to the findings in its decision of 9 July 2007 that a short circuit had been the cause of the fire.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the State failed to investigate the criminal case into arson.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Does Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 impose a positive obligation on the State to protect property, to include an obligation to conduct an effective criminal investigation, where the interference is of a criminal nature?

2. Was criminal investigation into arson in the present case in conformity with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?