SECOND SECTION

Application no. 54192/09 Vera TRE Č IOKIEN Ė against Lithuania lodged on 30 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Vera Trečiokienė , is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Marijampolė . She is represented before the Court by Ms Neringa Grubliauskienė , a lawyer practising in Kaunas.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 4 November 2002 the applicant ’ s son died in a car accident after a police car had hit him. The victim and, presumably, his friend had not stopped a stolen car for a police check and had tried to escape. It appears that they were chased by the police car and just a few moments before the accident had left the stolen car with the lights off in the middle of the road.

On the same day a pre-trial investigation into the actions of the police was initiated.

On 5 November 2002 an experiment concerning the circumstances of the accident was carried out. It was concluded that in the situation it had not been possible to avoid the collision, due to poor visibility.

Between November 2002 and May 2003 several forensic medical, dactyloscopy and other examinations were carried out. It was concluded that the main reason for the accident to occur was the behaviour of the driver of the stolen car. At the same time, there was no certainty as to whether the policemen had been able to avoid the collision.

On 31 June 2003 after having found that the victim had caused the accident the prosecutors discontinued the investigation. However, on 18 August 2003 upon the applicant ’ s appeal it was renewed so that contradictions in the case file could be clarified. The applicant was granted the status of a victim in the criminal case.

During the investigation the applicant filed several requests to submit new pieces of evidence, conduct additional examinations and question witnesses. Although initially most requests were rejected, after the applicant had appealed some of them were satisfied by the superior prosecutors. The applicant ’ s requests to withdraw the prosecutors from the case were refused.

On 12 March 2004 and on 20 May 2005 two more reports on forensic examination were delivered which confirmed that the driver of the stolen car had caused the accident.

In January – June 2006 several witnesses were questioned.

On 22 July 2008 a report of one more forensic examination which had been ordered in September 2006 was delivered. It indicated that there was no possibility to determine DNA from the items found inside the vehicle.

On 30 January 2009 the prosecutors discontinued the investigation having established that no crime had taken place and the accident was caused by the negligent behaviour of the victim. As concerns the second person, V. Č., allegedly present in the stolen car or near it before the collision, no proof was found that the latter was driving the car and, thus, the investigation against him was also discontinued.

On 30 March 2009 the superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint about the unjustified discontinuance of the investigation and concluded that the proceedings had become time-barred.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the State authorities did not conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her son ’ s death. Invoking Article 6 § 1 the applicant also alleges that the length of the pre-trial investigation, which lasted more than six years, was unreasonable.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the domestic investigation into the death of the applicant ’ s son compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?