Communicated on 3 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 47107/14 Natalya Stanislavovna BIKBULATOVA and others against Ukraine lodged on 10 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 29 April 2003 the applicants ’ relative, Vasiliy Mikhalkov , who was born in 1963, was taken by police officers to a local sobering-up facility because of his severe alcohol intoxication. He died there of an acute internal haemorrhage and the laceration of his small intestine resulting from abdominal trauma sustained on the same date.

On 20 June 2003 the Kompaniyivka District Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Kirovohrad Region initiated a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Vasiliy Mikhalkov ’ s death.

On 13 January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights found in the case of Mikhalkova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 10919/05 ) that there had been substantive violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention as regards Vasiliy Mikhalkov ’ s death and his inhuman treatment. The Court also found that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities ’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants ’ relative ’ s death. In that connection the Court held that, by the time of its judgment, the domestic investigation had been groundlessly delayed, it had not been thorough and no conclusion had been made as to the circumstances in which the victim had sustained his fatal injuries and the persons responsible had not been identified. The Court ’ s judgment became final on 13 April 2011.

On 26 May 2011 the investigation, which had been suspended on the grounds that the suspects had not been identified, was resumed.

On 30 May 2011 two police officers, S. and P., were charged with crimes under Article 121 § 2 (intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury resulting in death of the victim) and Article 365 § 3 of the Criminal Code (exceeding authority or official powers which caused serious consequences).

On 23 June 2011 the Kompaniyivka District Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment. The case was referred to the Bobrynets District Court, Kirovohrad Region (“the District Court”) in order to try S. and P.

On 17 December 2012 the District Court found S. and P. guilty of crimes under Articles 121 § 2 and 365 § 3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to seven years ’ imprisonment with a three year prohibition on occupying posts in the law-enforcement authorities. It also awarded the applicants damages that had to be paid by the State treasury.

The defendants, the prosecutor and the State treasury appealed against that judgment.

On 28 May 2013 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal quashed the District Court ’ s judgment and closed the case, ruling that prosecution of the offence was time-barred. The Court of Appeal stated that the defendants had been charged with crimes for which the Criminal Code provided a ten-year statute of limitations. That period had expired by the time the appeals were being considered, and the proceedings had to be closed.

The applicants and the prosecutor lodged appeals on the points of law.

On 10 December 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court dismissed those appeals and upheld the decision of 28 May 2013.

B. Relevant domestic law

Criminal Code 2001

Article 121 § 2 of the Code penalises intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury causing the victim ’ s death by imprisonment for seven to ten years.

In accordance with Article 365 § 3 of the Code (as it was worded at the relevant time), exceeding of authority or powers by an official, if such acts caused serious consequences, is punishable by imprisonment for seven to ten years with a prohibition of up to three years on occupying certain posts or carrying out certain activities.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain that following the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Mikhalkova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 10919/05 , 13 January 2011) the subsequent criminal proceedings concerning the death of their relative were ineffective and they were deliberately delayed by the authorities which amounted to a new violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

With respect to the period after the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Mikhalkova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 10919/05 , 13 January 2011), did the investigating authorities and the courts comply with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention? Did they act with the requisite diligence and promptness in view of the statute of limitations provided for in domestic law?

The Government are invited to provide (a) the chronology of procedural measures undertaken by the domestic authorities in the criminal case at issue during the period in question and (b) the relevant documents (including the documents concerning the scheduling of hearings in that criminal case and providing reasons for adjournments).

Appendix