Communicated on 10 September 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no . 76805/11 Mindaugas KRAULAIDIS against Lithuania and 3 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicants are Lithuanian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A. Facts

The applicant was severely injured as a result of a car accident on 28 April 2006. The same day a pre-trial investigation was started by prosecutors into the actions of the driver of a car, M.N.

On several occasions the applicant submitted requests to the prosecutors drawing their attention to shortcomings and delays in the investigation and asked to speed it up and take all necessary action so the relevant circumstances were examined. He noted that no blood test of the driver of the car had been conducted, the sketch of the accident had been altered (or even forged) without notifying the parties and information letters concerning the investigation had been sent to a wrong address.

In reply to the applicant ’ s request the prosecutor ’ s office submitted that the sketch of the accident had been drawn up on the day of the accident, reports on the accident and the technical state of the vehicles had been drafted as well, a medical examination had been carried out and blood samples for testing had been taken. During several weeks following the accident eight witnesses had been questioned and a medical examination had been ordered. The letters of information on the proceedings had also been sent to the applicant ’ s representative ’ s address.

The applicant ’ s request for the withdrawal of the prosecutor due to his inactivity and a lack of objectivity was dismissed by the first instance court on 26 April 2007.

On 31 January 2007 and 16 June 2008 reports of experts were delivered.

On 13 August 2008 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation after finding that the suspect had not violated the road traffic regulations, and therefore he was not responsible for causing the accident and the injury to the applicant.

On 17 October 2008 a specialist ’ s report which the applicant had ordered was delivered.

On 20 November 2008 the court ordered the reopening of the investigation in order for additional forensic examination into the causes of the accident to be carried out and contradictions to be clarified. A new expert ’ s report was delivered on 15 May 2009. The investigation was again discontinued on 3 June 2009.

On several occasions the investigation was reopened after the courts had established it had been unlawfully discontinued by the prosecutors; those decisions by the Vilnius Regional Court were delivered on 27 August 2009 and 22 March 2011.

In its decision of 22 March 2011 the court noted that according to the testimonies of witnesses and the reports of experts and specialists a possible main cause of the accident was the actions of M.N., who had suddenly left his lane in order to overtake a vehicle, thus blocking the motorcycle of the applicant going in the same direction. The court ordered that a thorough investigation be carried out, taking into account all rel evant facts and evidence.

On 31 May 2011 the prosecutors discontinued the investigation on the ground that it had become time-barred, as the five-year limitation period had expired.

B. Complaints

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the pre-trial investigation against M.N. lasted too long and failed to provide effective protection of the rights of the applicant who had been recognized as having victim status in the proceedings. He submits that as a result of the breach of the road traffic regulations and the accident he was severely injured; however, that violation has not been redressed because the proceedings were discontinued due to the expiry of the limitation period. The pre-trial investigation was not comprehensive and impartial and decisions taken therein were not clear and reasoned, thus breaching the applicant ’ s right to a court.

The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 about unfairness and that the authorities and the courts were arbitrary.

A. Facts

On 17 April 2007, a scaffold on which the applicant and others were working on a construction site collapsed. According to the facts as submitted by the applicant, a representative of his employer failed to call an ambulance immediately; instead, he ordered that the unconscious applicant be moved to another place and the site be cleaned of traces of the accident . Only half an hour later did a worker working in another company call an ambulance. One hour after the accident the site was examined by the State Labour Inspectorate (hereinafter “the Inspectorate”). Because of the severe injuries sustained during the accident, the applicant suffered irreparable harm to his health, becoming disabled and unfit for work.

According to a report of 15 July 2007 by the Inspectorate, an improper organisation of dangerous work was found to be the cause of the accident, given that scaffolding without guardrails had been used, thus breaching the Regulations of Safety and Health in Constructions.

On 10 September 2007 upon a request by the applicant a pre-trial investigation was started into a possible violation of requirements of safety at work resulting in an accident involving people. The applicant was granted victim status. Numerous witnesses, including workers from the construction site, were questioned.

On 30 September 2008 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation, observing that the negligence of the applicant himself could have caused the accident. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the investigation had been ineffective as it had been delayed by the prosecutors and the contradictions between the criminal investigation and the one conducted by the Inspectorate had not been resolved.

On 5 December 2008 the KlaipÄ—da City District Court reopened the investigation after concluding that it had not been comprehensive and that the decisions of the prosecutors had not been sufficiently reasoned.

On several occasions the applicant complained about the inactivity of the prosecutors and delays in the investigation. The prosecutors partially acknowledged this.

On 17 June 2009 the Inspectorate reaffirmed its previous conclusion that the safety requirements had been breached by the employer.

On 3 July 2009 the investigation was again discontinued. However, by a decision of 28 October 2009 the KlaipÄ—da Regional Court quashed the discontinuation and ordered the reopening of the proceedings.

On 18 December 2009 the prosecutor ordered an expert ’ s examination of safety at the applicant ’ s workplace at the time of the accident.

According to an expert ’ s report of 17 February 2010 it was reaffirmed that the causes of the accident were similar to those indicated in the reports delivered by the Inspectorate.

On 19 May 2010 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation for the third time and at the same time observed that certain witnesses had allegedly changed their testimony when questioned for the second time by the prosecutors. Some of the witnesses submitted written statements that they had been under an influence and had been forced not to inculpate their employer.

On 9 August 2010 the KlaipÄ—da District Court ordered the reopening of the investigation after finding that it had not been comprehensive and that the decisions of the prosecutors had not been sufficiently reasoned.

A bill of indictment against a construction manager was issued in February 2011 and the case was transferred to the court in March 2011.

On 16 January 2012 the applicant submitted a civil claim for damages.

It appears that the proceedings before the first instance court remained dormant and hearings were constantly postponed until 14 May 2012 due to the accused ’ s inability to attend them because of health-related reasons.

On 14 May 2012 the case was discontinued due to the expiry of the five-year limitation period. The applicant ’ s civil claim for damages in the criminal case was left unexamined and he was advised to address the civil courts with a claim.

B. Complaints

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that given the ineffective and protracted criminal proceedings the accident at work was not examined and he was denied access to a court. As a result of the accident the applicant became disabled, unfit for work and has been suffering from emotional distress; however, his rights were not protected and the case was discontinued as time-barred. He further alleges that the courts were arbitrary as they defended the interests of those who were responsible for his injury at work.

A. Facts

The applicant ’ s husband used to work as a mechanic in cargo ships. In the morning of 24 October 2007 he was found dead in his cabin of the ship “Vega” while on a work mission to Brazil. An investigation was started by prosecutors in Lithuania the following day after receiving a notification from the victim ’ s employer.

In a certificate issued by the Brazilian authorities on 5 November 2007 a heart attack was indicated as the cause of the applicant ’ s husband ’ s death.

The applicant requested the prosecutors and the State Labour Inspectorate to investigate the causes of her husband ’ s death and his working conditions on the ship. On 16 November 2007 she was granted victim status.

According to a first report of 16 November 2007 by the Inspectorate, the working conditions on the ship “Vega” were not found to be harmful. Nevertheless, in a report of 18 December 2007 the Inspectorate noted that the working conditions were bad.

Relying on her previous conversations with her late husband, the applicant claims that in reality the conditions of work were particularly harsh as the ship was in a bad technical state and its mechanics had to deal with permanent fires and leaks of gas without using adequate protection; due to the fires and breakdowns of the air conditioning system, the temperature in cabins sometimes reached +50 o C. Those facts were later confirmed by other members of the crew when questioned by prosecutors. It appears that the technical problems in the engine room had already been reported to the ship ’ s company in early September 2007 and were confirmed during an inspection at the port in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil a few days after the incident. In addition, the applicant ’ s husband had passed a medical check-up just before going on the mission in April 2007 and had had no health issues before the trip.

On 29 December 2007 the prosecutor refused to start an investigation given that there were no signs of a crime and the victim had presumably died because of the illness, signs of which had been diagnosed in 2001. That decision, however, was quashed by the KlaipÄ—da Regional Court on 13 February 2008, which observed that the prosecutors had failed to take necessary investigative actions in order tha t all relevant circumstances were established . Subsequently, a pre-trial investigation was started.

However, on 31 December 2008 it was discontinued by the prosecutor after he found that no crime had taken place and the victim had died because of his illness.

In separate proceedings, on 5 February 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld a decision of the lower court that the sudden death of the applicant ’ s husband was likely to have been caused by complications of the health problem diagnosed in 2001. That conclusion was based on submissions of an expert. As a result, the applicant ’ s claim before the administrative courts for her husband ’ s death to be recognised as an accident at work was dismissed.

The discontinued pre-trial investigation was reopened by a decision of the KlaipÄ—da Regional Court on 20 March 2009 after the applicant had appealed, alleging numerous shortcomings and contradictions in the investigation and unreasoned rejection of her requests by the prosecutors.

On several occasions in 2009 the police of the seaport of the Klaipėda Region inquired the employer about documents concerning organisation of work in the ship, its technical state and inspections which the ship had undergone; however, either no response or a delayed refusal of the employer was received. In an answer of 2 February 2010 the employer stated that the ship “Vega” had been sold and the requested documents destroyed. It appears that the authorities did not take any further actions to obtain those documents.

On 1 February 2010 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office issued a request for legal assistance to the Brazilian authorities. The request for legal assistance had been prepared earlier but was sent out three months later due to unknown reasons, according to the applicant.

On 21 May 2010 the police of the seaport of the Klaipėda Region ordered specialists to conduct an examination of the cause of the death and the alleged impact of harmful working conditions; the report of the specialist was delivered on 7 December 2010. The specialist noted that it was impossible to answer those questions without first conducting a forensic examination of the victim ’ s body.

On 3 December 2010 a response to the request for legal assistance was received from the Brazilian authorities. However, no new information which would be relevant for the investigation was submitted.

The prosecutor discontinued the investigation again on 14 December 2010, having found that no crime had taken place. According to him, although the existence of harmful working conditions and leaks of the gas in the engine room of the ship were confirmed, it could not in any way have caused the failure of the victim ’ s heart.

The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the specialist ’ s report had not indisputably confirmed that her husband had died of a heart attack, given that an autopsy had not been carried out. Moreover, the health issue allegedly diagnosed in her husband in 2001 had been unknown to the applicant and probably her husband too. She pointed out shortcomings in the investigation, inter alia , the absence of results of the blood and toxicology tests, the documents concerning organisation of work in the ship and others.

On 12 September 2011 the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the cause of the death had already been established by the final and binding decision of 5 February 2009 by the Supreme Administrative Court in the administrative case. In addition, the court held that the investigation was comprehensive, during which numerous witnesses and experts had been questioned and necessary forensic examinations had been carried out. Moreover, the police department in Brazil had conducted its own investigation into the circumstances of the applicant ’ s husband ’ s death: the victim ’ s cabin had been inspected, the captain of the ship and the superior mechanic questioned. As concerns the applicant ’ s argument about collection of additional evidence, it was considered devoid of any purpose given the amount of time which had passed.

B. Complaints

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into the circumstances of her husband ’ s death was not timely and comprehensive. It failed to provide effective protection of the rights of the applicant, who had been recognised as having victim status. As a result, the damage sustained by the applicant has not been remedied and no responsible person had been identified.

The applicant further alleges that the inactivity of the Lithuanian authorities and numerous shortcomings in the investigation demonstrate that the proceedings were arbitrary and during them only the interests of those who were responsible for her husband ’ s death at work were defended.

A. Facts

On 17 February 2007 the applicant and his friends were beaten up by a group of persons during a stopover at a gas station in Skuodas , Å iauliai region. The applicant sustained a light bodily injury due to a haematoma and a fracture of his nose and an injury to his lip as a result of at least 10 kicks and blows to the head. The applicant had to undergo nose surgery and his hearing got worse. The assault was recorded by a video camera of the gas station.

The same day the victims reported the incident to the police and a pre-trial investigation was started. In March 2007 the culprits were charged with causing public disorder but later the charges were modified and they were charged with causing light bodily injuries.

In March 2008 the case was transferred to the court.

On 17 December 2009 the Skuodas District Court convicted three accused persons of causing light bodily injuries and granted the applicant ’ s civil claim in part.

However, on 25 February 2010 the judgment was quashed by the KlaipÄ—da Regional Court and the case was remitted for re-examination due to a procedural error made by the first instance court.

After the Skuodas District Court had delivered a new judgment against the accused, on 5 August 2011 it was again quashed by the KlaipÄ—da Regional Court. The appellate court found that the judgment had not addressed part of the charges in the bill of indictment and had restricted the rights of the victims , while noting that the court of first instance had been objectively biased.

On 26 March 2012 the Skuodas District Court discontinued the case due to the expiry of the five-year limitation period. The applicant ’ s civil claim for damages in the criminal case was left unexamined.

B. Complaints

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that because of the mistakes and incompetence of the domestic courts the proceedings were unnecessarily protracted and he was deprived of access to a court. As a result, the whole process was unfair and his rights were not protected.

QUESTIONS

Cases Kraulaidis v. Lithuania , no. 76805/11, Mažukna v. Lithuania , no. 72092/12 and Kostecka s v. Lithuania , no. 960/13:

1. Has there been a breach of the applicants ’ right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the manner in which the domestic authorities examined the accidents and the fact that the criminal proceedings were discontinued due to the expiry of the limitation period? In this connection see Dinchev v. Bulgaria (no. 23057/03, §§ 40-52 , 22 January 2009 ), and Anagnostopoulos v. Greece ( no. 54589/00, § 32 , 3 April 2003).

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present cases in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to an effective domestic remedy, as provided for in Article 13 of the Convention?

Case Bakanova v. Lithuania, no. 11167/12:

1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the criminal investigation by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, §§ 234-242, ECHR 2010 (extracts) ; also see Česnulevičius v. Lithuania , no. 13462/06 , §§ 92-93, 10 January 2012 and the case-law cited therein )?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to an effective domestic remedy, as provided for in Article 13 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § § 121-123, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII ; and Zavoloka v. Latvia , no. 58447/00 , §§ 34-40, 7 July 2009; also see, mutatis mutandis , Kontrová v. Slovakia , no. 7510/04, §§ 59-65, 31 May 2007)?

As concerns all cases:

As regards the criminal proceedings the parties are requested to indicate the dates and decisions when they were granted the status of victim and the outcome of their civil claims.

The parties are requested to inform the Court and submit relevant documents about any other related proceedings the applicants have instituted/undergone.

APPENDIX

1 . 76805/11 KRAULAIDIS v. Lithuania

2 . 11167/12 BAKANOVA v. Lithuania

3 . 72092/12 MAŽUKNA v. Lithuania

4 . 960/13 KOSTECKAS v. Lithuania