Communicated on 4 October 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 70015/17 Pavol KAPKO against Slovakia lodged on 20 September 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged lack of an effective and in particular expeditious investigation into the liability for an accident (a collapse in 2009 of a large-capacity tent during the “ Pohoda ” summer music festival) that among other consequences caused injuries to the applicant ’ s daughter, to which she later succumbed. It involves a potential issue of the State ’ s positive obligations under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention. In addition to exercising his status of an injured party in the ensuing investigation and still on-going prosecution of the executive of the company providing the tent, but without raising any specific Convention complaint in that respect, in 2012 the applicant also claimed damages from that company and the company organising the festival by way of an action for protection of personal integrity, which also appears to be on ‑ going.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant been provided with an effective independent judicial system as required by the State ’ s positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention (see, for example, Demir v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 34885/06, § 68, 13 November 2012)?

In view of all the circumstances, including the presence or absence of any indication of a criminal intent on the part of those suspected of being responsible for the death of the applicant ’ s daughter, do the State ’ s positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention entail recourse to criminal ‑ law remedies?

If yes, has the investigation complained of been carried out in compliance with the requirements of that provision, including for its expeditiousness (see, for example, Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine , no. 22737/04, § 61, 12 January 2012)?

If not, has the applicant been provided with a civil-law or other remedy compatible, alone or in conjunction with any criminal-law remedy, with the State ’ s positive obligations under Art icle 2 of the Convention (see a summary of the relevant principles and case law references in Koceski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ( dec. ), no. 41107/07, § 22, 22 October 2013)? In particular, but not only, is the action for protection of personal integrity such a civil-law remedy (see Furd ík v. Slovakia ( dec. ), no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008)?