Lexploria

Communicated on 4 February 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 24273/11 Vladimir Nikolayevich SOBOLEVSKIY and Lyudmila Georgiyevna TYUNINA against Russia and 5 other applications – see appended list

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants complained under various Convention provisions that their close family members had died as a result of various incidents allegedly caused by third private parties and that the State failed appropriately to react to these deaths. All of the applicants submitted that their attempts to initiate criminal investigation in connection with the incidents proved futile. Some of the applicants applied to domestic courts with tort claims and also complained that the amount of granted awards was too low (see the attached table for details).

The relevant details regarding the applicants ’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices. The information regarding the alleged breaches of the Convention provisions in contained in Appendix no. 1. The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants ’ complaints is reflected in Appendix no. 2.

The table of cases:

No.

Application number

Introduction date

Name of the applicant(s) ; date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

1.

24273/11

31/03/2011

Vladimir Nikolayevich SOBOLEVSKIY

05/12/1980

Dzerzhinsk

Lyudmila Georgiyevna TYUNINA

19/09/1959

Dzerzhinsk

2.

24636/11

31/03/2011

Nikolay Vladimirovich TYUNIN

21/07/1957

Dzerzhinsk

3.

16283/14

10/04/2014

Lyudmila Kirillovna GRACHEVA

10/09/1944

Panino District of the Voronezh Region

4.

60946/14

24/08/2014

Natalya Yevgenyevna KUZNETSOVA

02/09/1974

Ostashkov , the Tver Region

5.

55084/17

24/07/2017

Vladimir Nikolayevich STEPANOV

17/11/1949

St Petersburg

Dmitriy Sergeyevich MEDNIKOV, Moscow

6.

73932/17

24/07/2017

Valeriy Yuriyevich GLAZKOV

27/06/1953

St Petersburg

Dmitriy Sergeyevich MEDNIKOV, Moscow

QUESTIONS

Having regard to the positive obligation of Article 2 of the Convention, can it be said that this Convention provision has been complied with in the present cases. The Government are requested to comment in detail on the following questions:

Have the applicants exhausted the available and effective domestic remedies in their cases, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

As to the criminal complaints:

- was the State ’ s positive obligation under Article 2 to institute and conduct a criminal investigation into the alleged events leading to death of the applicants ’ relatives complied with?

As to the civil complaints:

- were the amounts granted by the domestic courts to some of the applicants (see the table below) compatible with the requirements of the positive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention?

- given the findings and awards of the domestic courts in civil cases brought by some of the applicants (see the table below), can it be said that the applicants may still claim to be victims of a violation of the positive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in connection with the death of their relatives?

No.

Application No. and Title

APPENDIX No. 1

Article 2 - Substantive aspect

Deceased relative

Events surrounding death

Case-file materials

Name and date of birth

Date and location of death

Kinship to the applicant

Date

Time

Location

Alleged Facts

Perpetrator(s)

The applicant ’ s complaints

Use of other remedies in the domestic legal system

1.

24273/11

Sobolevskiy and Tyunina

v. Russia

Mr E. N. Tyunin

1983

06/03/2008, in a hospital

The applicant ’ s brother and son respectively

3/03/2008,

11 PM

Next to Privokzalnaya Square of Dzerzhinsk

The applicant ’ s brother and son fell into a pit of boiling hot water which had formed as a result of a technical accident of a underground hot water pipe (possibly for the lack of maintenance)

Employees of OAO NKS

Without referring to any Convention provision the applicant complains about ineffectiveness of criminal investigation

Article 6: the applicant complains that the amount of compensations paid to victims in this type of cases in Russia is manifestly insufficient to deter re-offending

By judgment of 28/09/2010 of the Dzerzhinsk Town Court of the Nizhegorodskiy Region the applicant was granted RUB 150000 (non ‑ pecuniary damage, around EUR 5000) to be paid by OAO NKS

2.

24636/11

Tyunin

v. Russia

Mr E. N. Tyunin

1983

06/03/2008, in a hospital

The applicant ’ s son

3/03/2008,

11 PM

Next to Privokzalnaya Square of Dzerzhinsk

The applicant ’ s son fell into a pit of boiling hot water which had formed as a result of a technical accident of a underground hot water pipe (possibly for the lack of maintenance)

Employees of OAO NKS

Without referring to any Convention provision the applicant complains about ineffectiveness of criminal investigation

Article 6: the applicant complains that the amount of compensations paid to victims in this type of cases in Russia is manifestly insufficient to deter re-offending

By judgment of 28/09/2010 of the Dzerzhinsk Town Court of the Nizhegorodskiy Region the applicant was granted RUB 19950 (pecuniary damage, around EUR 665), 150000 (non-pecuniary damage, around EUR 5000) to be paid by OAO NKS

3.

16283/14

Gracheva

v. Russia

Mr G.A. Lachkov

09/07/2010, next to the building of middle school in the village of Panino

The applicant ’ s son

09/07/2010

11 AM

next to the building of middle school in the village of Panino

As a result of a breach of security regulations d uring excavation works, Mr G.A. Lachkov , a worker, fell in the excavation pit and died of asphyxia

An acting head of the city council who gave an informal order to carry out the excavations

Articles 2 and 13: ineffective and slow reaction to the death of the applicant ’ s son, inability to prosecute the perpetrators; Article 6: unfairness of court proceedings

By judgment of 16/12/2010 of the Panino District Court of the Voronezh Region the applicant was granted RUB 180000 (around EUR 6000) and RUB 4400 for legal costs to be paid by the municipal school (not clear if the judgment has been appealed against by the applicant)

4.

60946/14

Kuznetsova

v. Russia

Mr S. A. Kuznetsov ,

2000

02/07/2011,

6.25 AM, Ostashkov

The applicant ’ s son

02/07/2011

A street in Ostashkov

A high voltage electricity incident resulting in death of the applicant ’ s son;

Mr S. A. Kuznetsov touched the surface of a garage box which was improperly connected to the grid

Employees of OOO REK (e lectricity service company): Mr C h. and M L.

Article 13 and 6: ineffective and slow reaction to the death of the applicant ’ s son, lack of effective remedies to bring perpetrators to justice

The file contains no indication whether a tort claim has been brought against OOO REK

5.

55084/17 Stepanov

v. Russia

Mr V. V. Stepanov

5/11/2007

The applicant ’ s son

5/11/2007, 8.50 PM

A street in St Petersburg

Road traffic accident, the applicant ’ s son drove a car which collided with a snow cleaning truck belonging to OAO Kolomyazhskoye

The driver of the truck was tried, but later proceedings were discontinued

Article 2: ineffective investigation and inability to obtain justice

Article 2 in conjunction with Article 13: the general ineffectiveness of domestic remedies

Claimed compensation for delays in the criminal proceedings; applied with a tort claim against the owner of the truck (the outcome is unclear)

6.

73932/17

Glazkov

v. Russia

Mr Yu. V . Glazkov

5/11/2007,

8.50 PM,

St Petersburg

The applicant ’ s son

5/11/2007, 8.50 PM

A street in St Petersburg

Road traffic accident, the applicant ’ s son was in a passanger ’ s seat of a car of Mr V. V. Stepanov which collided with a snow cleaning truck belonging to OAO Kolomyazhskoye

The driver of the truck was tried, but later proceedings were discontinued

Article 2: ineffective investigation and inability to obtain justice

Article 2 in conjunction with Article 13: the general ineffectiveness of domestic remedies

Claimed compensation for delays in the criminal proceedings; applied with a tort claim against the owner of the truck (the outcome is unclear)

No.

Application No. and Title

APPENDIX No. 2

Article 2 - Procedural aspect

DOMESTIC COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT REACTION

Date of Complaint

Authority

Type of Reaction

Date(s)

Procedural Outcome

1.

24273/11

Sobolevskiy and Tyunina v. Russia

17/03/2008

The department of the interior of the Investigative Committee of the Nizhegorodskiy Region

Multiple refusals

17/03/2008; 18/03/2008; 06/06/2008; 01/09/2008; 08/09/2008; 31/10/2008; 21/11/2008; 11/02/2009; 16/02/2009; 04/03/2009; 13/03/2009; 26/03/2009; 31/03/2009; 10/04/2009; 16/04/2009; 05/06/2009; 19/06/2009; 07/12/2009; 25/12/2009; 30/12/2009; 18/10/2009; 01/02/2010; 07/05/2010; 30/08/2010; 02/11/2010; 29/12/2011

Delays and eventual inability to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, the current state of the proceedings is unclear

2.

24636/11

Tyunin v. Russia

17/03/2008

The department of the interior of the Investigative Committee of the Nizhegorodskiy Region

Multiple refusals

17/03/2008; 18/03/2008; 06/06/2008; 01/09/2008; 08/09/2008; 31/10/2008; 21/11/2008; 11/02/2009; 16/02/2009; 04/03/2009; 13/03/2009; 26/03/2009; 31/03/2009; 10/04/2009; 16/04/2009; 05/06/2009; 19/06/2009; 07/12/2009; 25/12/2009; 30/12/2009; 18/10/2009; 01/02/2010; 07/05/2010; 30/08/2010; 02/11/2010; 29/12/2011

Delays and eventual inability to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, the current state of the proceedings is unclear

3.

16283/14

Gracheva v. Russia

15/09/2010

Panino District Prosecutor ’ s office

Multiple refusals

05/04/2012; 29/05/2012; 08/10/2012; 08/02/2013; 19/07/2013; 09/08/2013; 24/03/2014

On 5/12/2011 the criminal case was instituted, but then over ten times suspended or discontinued

4.

60946/14

Kuznetsova v. Russia

unclear

Ostashkovskiy Interdistrict Investigative authority of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Tver Region

Multiple refusal, eventual decision to discontinue the proceedings with reference to the expiry of the two year time-limit

16/09/2011

On 24/10/2011 the investigation (infliction of death through negligence) was instituted; on 6/11/2011 the case sent to the prosecutor ’ s office for approval; on 19/11/2012 the case was returned for further investigation; after multiple and long delays on 15/08/2013 the case was discontinued with reference to the expiry of the two year time-limit; this decision was upheld at first instance on 10/12/2013 and then on appeal on 24/02/2014

5.

55084/17

Stepanov v. Russia

6/11/2007

Primorsk District Department of the Interior of St Petersburg

Consistent and multiple refusals (14 times), an attempt to trial, which ended in the expiry of a six year time limit for prosecution

6/12/2007; 14/03/2008; 21/04/2008; 30/06/2008; 30/07/2008; 01/09/2008; 01/10/2008; 01/11/2008; 9/12/2008; 16/12/2008; 9/12/2009

From 25/05/2009 until 19/05/2016 court proceedings, on the latter date the proceedings were discontinued due to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution. Latest decisions: 24/01/2017 (St Petersburg City Court), 2/03/2017 (Constitutional Court)

6.

73932/17

Glazkov v. Russia

6/11/2007

Primorsk District Department of the Interior of St Petersburg

Consistent and multiple refusals (14 times), an attempt to trial, which ended in the expiry of a six year time limit for prosecution

6/12/2007; 14/03/2008; 21/04/2008; 30/06/2008; 30/07/2008; 01/09/2008; 01/10/2008; 01/11/2008; 9/12/2008; 16/12/2008; 9/12/2009

From 25/05/2009 until 19/05/2016 court proceedings, on the latter date the proceedings were discontinued due to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution. Latest decisions: 24/01/2017 (St Petersburg City Court), 2/03/2017 (Constitutional Court)

Menu

SOBOLEVSKIY AND TYUNINA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

SOBOLEVSKIY AND TYUNINA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

LEXI