FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40458/08 Anatoliy Andreyevich TUCHIN and Svetlana Aleksandrovna TUCHINA against Ukraine lodged on 29 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Anatoliy Andreyevich Tuchin (“the first applicant”) and Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Tuchina (“the second applicant”), are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1943 and 1942 respectively, and live in Odessa. They are represented before the Court by Mr S.V. Vashchenko .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 30 April 2002 the applicants ’ daughter, Ms B., and their grandson, Mr A., were hit by a car driven by Mr P., who immediately fled from the scene of the accident. As a result of the accident, Mr A. received minor bodily injuries, while Ms B. was seriously injured. Witnesses called the traffic police and the ambulance which transported Ms B. to a hospital.

Later on the same date, the traffic police stopped Mr P. and seized his car and driving licence. Mr P. acknowledged that he had hit the applicants ’ daughter and her son and explained that he had not been able to see them because they had been crossing the road in violation of traffic rules. On the same day Mr P. was examined by a medical expert and found to be sober.

On 6 May 2002 Ms B. died in a hospital because of the injuries sustained in the traffic accident .

On 15 May 2002 the police returned the driving license and the car to Mr P. On 27 August 2002 the prosecutors destroyed all the clothing and belongings of Ms B. found at the scene of the traffic accident.

Until December 2005 the prosecutors repeatedly refused the applicants ’ requests to institute an investigation into the death of Ms B. and criminal proceedings against Mr P. Those refusals were subsequently quashed by the courts as being unlawful. In December 2005 an investigation into the death of Ms B. was eventually instituted.

Between 2005 and 2009 that investigation was discontinued and resumed several times. The applicants ’ requests to be recognised as an aggrieved party to the proceedings were refused by the prosecutors for unknown reasons.

On 20 January 2009, while considering the first applicant ’ s appeal against one of the prosecutors ’ decisions, the Supreme Court noted that during 2002-2007 the prosecutors had not conducted the investigation into the death of Ms B. with the sufficient speediness and diligence. The court referred in particular to the repeated discontinuations of the proceedings in this period.

On 27 October 2009, within the framework of the criminal investigation into the traffic accident, the prosecutors charged Mr P. with having hit Ms B. and leaving her in danger after the accident.

On an unspecified date in 2009 Mr A. and the first applicant were recognised as an aggrieved party to the proceedings.

On 26 October 2010 the Suvorovskyy District Court of Odessa terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr P. as time-barred. On 21 December 2010 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 20 November 2012 the Higher Specialised Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

On 6 July 2011 the prosecutors discontinued the investigation into the death of Ms B., having established that there was no corpus delicti in the actions of Mr P. It is unknown whether the applicants appealed against that decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that the investigation into the death of their daughter had been lengthy, incomplete and in effective. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, in substance, to Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the criminal proceedings in the present case? If so, was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?