Communicated on 9 May 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 16876/14 Svetlana Aleksandrovna SILINA against Russia lodged on 27 January 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Silina , is a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Kaliningrad.

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

The applicant ’ s father worked as a guard of an apartment building under construction at the address 49, Dimitrova Street in Kalinigrad .

On 2 February 2005 the applicant received a phone call informing her that her father was in a hospital with craniocerebral traumas sustained as a result of his accidentally falling down the stairs.

On 25 February 2005 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant ’ s father ’ s death was an accident. In the decision the Prosecutor ’ s Office referred to forensic report no. 355 of 5 February 2005, according to which the applicant ’ s father died of a closed blunt craniocerebral trauma with a fracture of the occiput and a hematoma caused by his falling down the stairs. The Prosecutor ’ s Office also referred to the statement of Sh., director of real estate agency “ Venera ”, who had submitted as follows. On 2 February 2005 at around 3 p.m. Sh. had an appointment with a client who wished to purchase an apartment in the apartment building at 49, Dimitrova Street. She had agreed with the construction manager that he would leave the keys for her with the guard. Having arrived, Sh. approached the guard and together they went to unlock the apartment in question. The apartment was a duplex and the lower lever was on the ground floor. There was no electricity in the apartment. In order to prepare the apartment to be shown to the client, the guard started walking down the stairs to the lower level so as to open the blinds, as that level was completely dark. Having descended approximately half the staircase, he suddenly fell with his back on the floor and hit it with the back of his head.

On 7 April 2005 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Leningradskiy District of Kaliningrad refused to institute criminal proceedings. The Prosecutor ’ s Office referred to the entry of 1.40 p.m. on 2 February 2005 in the medical file no. 938 made upon the applicant ’ s father ’ s admittance to the hospital. According to the entry, apart from the craniocerebral trauma he had fractures of the third to eighths left ribs. The Prosecutor ’ s Office concluded that all the injuries which led to the applicant ’ s father ’ s death had been caused by his accidentally falling down the stairs.

The applicant complained about the decision of 25 February 2005 to a higher prosecutor.

On 6 May 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad dismissed the complaint.

Nevertheless, on 14 June 2005 the decision of 25 February 2005 was quashed.

On 24 June 2005 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad again refused to institute criminal proceedings. Apart from statements of the applicant and Sh. and forensic report no. 355 of 5 February 2005, the Prosecutor ’ s Office had regard to the statements of P., the head of the emergency unit that brought the applicant ’ s father to the hospital, and forensic expert D. It also had regard to the report of the examination of the scene, according to which the length of the descent to the lower level of the apartment was two meters. At the same time, there was no fixed staircase built in, but a wooden ladder was found in the apartment.

The applicant complained about the decision to a higher prosecutor.

On 29 September 2005 the prosecutor of the Kaliningrad Region dismissed the complaint.

However, on 8 November 2005 the decision of 24 June 2005 was quashed.

On 18 November 2005 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad again refused to institute criminal proceedings. It referred to, in particular, the lack of evidence of a violent death and, furthermore, the statement of the building company to the effect that it did not have an employment contract with the applicant ’ s father.

It appears that this decision was subsequently quashed.

On 21 December 2005 the prosecutor of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad instituted criminal proceedings into the applicant ’ s father ’ s death.

On 6 January 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

It appears that the investigation was a number of times suspended and resumed. In particular, it was suspended on 15 February and 6 September 2013 and resumed on 15 April and 11 November 2013 respectively. The criminal proceedings appear to be pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the length and inefficiency of criminal investigation into her father ’ s death.

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 in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?