Communicated on 19 December 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 44427/08 Irina Ivanovna POLYAKOVA against Ukraine lodged on 1 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Irina Ivanovna Polyakova , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Selydove .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 30 March 2004 the applicant ’ s son died as a result of an industrial accident at the State mining company S. where he was employed.

An ad hoc committee was set up to investigate the circumstances of the industrial accident. The committee included the chairman of the local mine technical inspectorate, the chairman of the local department of the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Occupational Diseases (“the Fund”) , the representative of the relevant labour trade union, and the representatives of the employer.

On 14 April 2004 the ad hoc committee found that the applicant ’ s son had died as a result of electrocution and that the accident had happened because the labour safety rules had not been properly observed at the company. The committee identified eight employees who had failed to comply with the labour safety rules.

On 14 March 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, relying on the social insurance legislation, ordered the local department of the Fund to pay a lump-sum insurance benefit to the applicant on account of the death of her son caused by industrial accident.

In October 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the state company S. seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her son.

On 5 February 2007 the Selydove Town Court partly allowed the claim and awarded the applicant 25,000 Ukrainian hryvnias [1] in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. The court found that the death of the applicant ’ s son had been caused by the negligence of the employees of the defendant company for whom the latter was responsible.

On 3 April 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court noting that the amount awarded was properly determined on the basis of the evidence in the file.

The defendant company lodged cassation appeal.

On 23 April 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 5 February and 3 April 2007 and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim as unfounded. It found that the lower courts wrongly determined the claim on the basis of general provisions of Civil Code. By contrast, the case had to be examined in the light of special legislation, namely the Law on mandatory State s ocial insurance against work-related accidents and occupational diseases causing disability. That parliamentary Act provided for the right to receive a lump-sum insurance benefit, a pension in case of death of a breadwinner, coverage of burial expenses. However, it did not envisage the right for non-pecuniary damage in case of an industrial accident causing death of a relative.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that she was denied compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her son in industrial accident at a State mine company.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of denial of the applicant ’ s right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her son?

2. Did the domestic authorities deal with the applicant ’ s civil claim in compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the requirements of access to court?

3. Having regard to the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, d id the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy to seek compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her son?

[1] About EUR 3,637.