Communicated on 28 August 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 47784/14 Valentina Ivanovna MIRONOVA against Russia lodged on 15 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Valentina Ivanovna Mironova , is a Russian nat ional, who was born in 1963 and who lives in Tolmachevo , a village in the Leningrad region. She is the mother of Mr Andrey Vladimirovich Mironov , who died in 2010 following a road traffic accident.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

On 21 March 2010 the applicant ’ s son was travelling in a car with his friends Sh. and L. when it collided head-on with another car. The applicant ’ s son died on the spot. The car in which he was travelling belonged to Sh. and the other car involved in the collision belonged to F.

On the same date investigating authorities inspected the scene of the accident. They asked Sh. ’ s mother to store the two cars involved in the accident until the end of the investigation.

On 24 March 2010 the investigating authorities instituted criminal proceedings against Sh. in respect of a charge of unintentional vehicular homicide, an offence punishable under Article 264 § 5 of the Russian Criminal Code . The applicant was granted victim status in those proceedings.

In May 2010 the investigator learned that Sh. had sold his car to a third party for parts.

On 24 September 2010 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against Sh. for lack of corpus delicti .

On 16 November 2010 that decision was overruled and proceedings were reopened.

On several subsequent occasions, the investigator in charge of the case made the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings. However, on each occasion, his decision was overruled by the prosecutor and the proceedings were reopened.

On 26 April 2012 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against Sh., having found no corpus delicti with regard to his actions. A copy of the decision to discontinue was sent to the applicant and she was advised of her right to bring a civil action.

In December 2012 the applicant challenged the decision of 26 April 2012 in court.

On 15 February 2013 the Luzhskoy Town Court, Leningrad Region, dismissed her complaint as unsubstantiated.

On 11 April 2013 the Leningrad Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the lower court ’ s decision of 15 February 2013.

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Regional Court, asking it to quash the decision of 15 February 2013 as upheld on 11 April 2013.

On 3 July 2013 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the case for consideration by the Presidium of that court.

The applicant lodged a fresh cassation appeal against the decision of 15 February 2013 as upheld on 11 April 2013 with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

On 2 April 2014 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to refer the case for consideration by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

It appears that the applicant did not bring any civil proceedings against Sh. or F.

B. Relevant domestic law

Russian Civil Code (Part II)

The relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code are the following:

Article 1079. Liability for h arm c aused by an especially hazardous a ctivity

“1. Legal entities and citizens who pose an extreme danger to persons around them through their activities (for example, vehicle use) are obliged to compensate for the harm caused by the source of extreme danger, unless they prove that the harm arose as the result of force majeure or an intentional act of the injured party. The owner of the source of extreme risk may also be released from liability by a court, either in full or in part, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1083 of this Code.

The responsibility to compensate for any harm caused shall be imposed on the legal entity or citizen who owns the source of extreme danger by virtue of the right of ownership, right of economic management, right of operational administration or any other legal obligation.

3. On the grounds set out in paragraph 1 of this Article, owners of sources of extreme danger are jointly liable for the harm caused as a result of the interaction of such sources with third parties, for example through collision of vehicles.”

Article 1083. Taking into consideration the f ault of the v ictim and the f inancial s ituation of the t ortfeasor

“1. Harm caused as a result of the intentional act of the victim shall not be subject to compensation.

2. If the gross negligence of the victim contributed to the cause or aggravation of harm, the amount of compensation shall be decreased depending on the degree of fault of the victim and of the tortfeasor .,

In the event of gross negligence on the part of the victim and in the absence of fault on the part of the alleged tortfeasor , and in instances when liability arises regardless of fault, the amount of compensation shall be decreased or compensation for harm may be refused, unless otherwise provided by law. If harm is caused to the life or health of a citizen, refusal of compensation for harm is not allowed.

...

3. The court may decrease the amount of compensation for harm caused by an individual by taking into account his financial situation, with the exception of instances when harm was caused by intentional actions.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation into her son ’ s death was ineffective.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Do the circumstances of the case disclose a breach of the respondent State ’ s positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was Article 2 applicable? If so, did the respondent State comply with its duty to protect life by the setting up of an effective judicial system capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria , no. 23302/03 , § § 72-83 , 24 May 2011 , Demir v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 34885/06, 13 November 2012 and Koceski v. former Yugoslkva Republic of Macedonia ( dec .), no. 4110/07, 22 October 2013)?