Communicated on 8 December 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 65395/16 Mariol a KULIK and others against Poland lodged on 4 November 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant, Mrs Mariol a Kulik and the second applicant, Mr Jarosław Kulik , are married to each other and were born in 1962. The third applicant, Mr Przemysław Kulik , is the son of the first and the second applicant and was born in 1985. They live in Warsaw and are represented before t he Court by Mrs J. Budzowska , a lawyer practising in Kraków .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background of the case

Mr Konrad Kulik , born in 1992, was the younger son of the first and second applicant and the brother of the third applicant.

On 6 February 2009 Konrad Kulik , who was then seventeen years old, attended a fencing training session. During the training he was struck by his adult sparring partner with a fencing epee which broke. The victim was not wearing the obligatory protection ( a breastplate) and was injured under his the left armpit. He fell to the floor and started bleeding both from the wound and also from his mouth. After the accident there was some confusion but an ambulance was called and finally arrived after a delay of 25 minutes, according to the applicants. Konrad Kulik was taken to a hospital in Warsaw, where he died approximately one hour later.

2. The civil proceedings (no. XXV C 153/12).

On 26 January 2012 the three applicants lodged a civil claim against the Academic Sports Association in Warsaw ( Stowarzyszenie Klub Sportowy Akademickiego Związku Sportowego Akademii Wychowani a Fizyczego J. Piłsudskiego w Warszawie ), hereafter “the Association”, before the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). They claimed that the Association had been responsible for the accident as the coach had allowed Konrad to take part in the training without wearing the obligatory body protection. They claimed 500,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 125,000 euros) each in compensation.

The first hearing took place on 2 October 2012.

The next hearings, scheduled for 6 December 2012 and 20 March 2013, were cancelled.

During the hearing on 25 March 2013 two witnesses testified.

On 4 April 2013 the company that produced the epee joined the proceedings as intervener ( interwenient uboczny ), supporting the defendant.

On 24 July 2013 two witnesses were scheduled to testify, but they did not appear before the court.

The next hearings, scheduled for 10 December 2013 and 25 February 2014, were cancelled.

On 24 July 2014 one of the three witnesses appeared and testified. In order to speed the proceedings up, the applicant ’ s lawyer asked the domestic court to request an expert opinion before the next hearing, but the court refused.

At the hearings on 15 and 27 January 2015 five witnesses testified.

On 19 May 2015 one witness testified.

The hearing scheduled for 19 November 2015 was cancelled.

On 25 February 2016 one of the two summoned witnesses appeared and testified.

The hearing scheduled for 10 May 2016 was cancelled.

On 20 September 2016 two witnesses testified.

On 20 October 2016 one witness testified. The domestic court decided to ask the Polish consul in London to hear another witness. It was also decided to examine in camer a the request to prepare an expert opinion.

3. The complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings

On 13 May 2016 the applicants lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to have a case examined in judicial proceedings without undue delay ( ustaw a o skardze n a naruszenie praw a strony do rozpoznani a sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). It was registered under number VI S 753/16.

On 13 July 2016 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the applicants ’ complaint.

4. The criminal proceedings (I Ds 239/11/ II )

On an unspecified date in 2016 the Warsaw- Żoliborz District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) lodged a bill of indictment against the coach. He was charged with an offence specified in section 160 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which constitutes an offence of endangering the life or health of a person while the perpetrator is bound by a duty to take care of that person in case of danger.

The criminal proceedings are pending.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 160 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

“1. Anyone who exposes a human being to an immediate danger of loss of life, serious bodily injury, or serious impairment of health shall be sentenced to up to three years ’ imprisonment.

2. If the perpetrator has a duty of care over the person exposed to the danger, he shall be sentenced to between three months and five years ’ imprisonment.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they had made serious allegations that the death of their son had been caused by negligence, but the authorities ’ response had been inadequate. Although special diligence was required in cases in this category, the civil proceedings instituted by them have so far lasted for almost six years at the first instance.

The applicants also complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation into and judicial examination of the death of Konrad Kulik thorough and effective, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? Reference is made in particular to the length of the pending criminal investigation and civil proceedings.

2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. The Government are invited to submit a copy of the bill of indictment and decisions of the prosecutors and the courts given in the criminal proceedings against the coach.