Communicated on 18 December 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 2588/09 Tetyana Pylypivna OSTAPENKO against Ukraine lodged on 2 January 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tetyana Pylypivna Ostapenko , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and currently lives in the Petrovske village, Kyiv Region, Ukraine .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant ’ s husband was a miner working at a State coal mine in Lugansk region.

On 11 March 2000 as a result of an explosion eighty people died in the coal mine, including the applicant ’ s husband.

On 23 March 2000 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a decision no. 1609-III by which the Cabinet of Ministers was empowered, inter alia , to pay 8,469,383 Ukrainian hryvnas to the families of the perished miners. According to the applicant, she did not receive any compensation.

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted to investigate the circumstances of the accident. In the course of investigation two managers of the mine were charged with violation of safety rules at an enterprise posing a risk of explosions causing deaths; three other managers were charged with negligent performance of their duties causing grievous consequences.

The applicant lodged a civil claim for damages within those proceedings.

On 6 July 2001 a local court convicted those managers as charged. Two of the de fendants were sentenced to five year s ’ imprisonments , one was sentenced to a three-and-a-half-year s ’ imprisonment with a three-year ban on occupying management posts in the coalmining industry. The other two defendants were given suspended sentences.

On 18 September 2001 the court of appeal reduced the sentences of three of the defendants.

On 1 August 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts, finding that the sentences imposed had been too lenient in view of the consequences of those crimes. The case was remitted to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.

On 23 January 2008 the local court convicted four managers of the mine and sentenced them as follows: (1) seven years ’ imprisonment; (2) five and a half years ’ imprisonment; (3) three and a half years ’ imprisonment with a two-year ban on occupying management posts; (4) three years ’ imprisonment with a two-year ban on occupying management posts. The court further disjoined the applicant ’ s civil claim from the criminal case for a separate examination in the civil proceedings. Further information about the examination of the applicant ’ s civil claim is lacking.

On 1 April 2008 the court of appeal quashed the judgment in respect of two of the defendants and terminated the proceedings for the reason that their prosecution was time-barred.

On 13 October 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her husband ’ s right to life was not secured.

She also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in her case lasted too long.

The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the failure to pay the compensation due to her.

The applicant finally invokes Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant ’ s husband ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

(a) Regard being had to the State ’ s positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to regulate hazardous activities so as to minimise risk to life (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99 , §§ 89-92, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII), whether the authorities did all that could have been required of them to secure the life of the applicant ’ s husband ?

(b) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, were the domestic proceedings in the present case in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2 . Was the len gth of the domestic proceedings relating to the applicant ’ s civil claim in breach of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies for her complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because of the failure to pay the applicant a compensation for her husband ’ s death ?