FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 1227/06 Tetyana Kostyantynivna GAVRYLOVA and Denys Oleksandrovych GAVRYLOV against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

On 27 July 2002 the Air Force of Ukraine organised a military aviation show at the “Lviv” (“Sknyliv”) airdrome to commemorate an anniversary of the 14 th Air Force Unit. The celebration agenda included a static display of military airplanes and other equipment and a live aerobatics show by military pilots. Several thousand individuals attended the event.

During the aerobatics performance, an airplane piloted by Colonels V. T. and Y. Y. fell and crashed into the static airplane display site, occupied by numerous spectators. Both pilots successfully ejected themselves before the airplane hit the ground. As a result of the crash, 77 persons were killed, including Oleg Olegovich Zheykov, minor nephew of the applicant T.O. Mindrova, who had been in her foster care since infancy. 292 persons, including all other applicants, were injured (see Appendix for details).

On the same day (27 July 2002) the military prosecutors ’ office instituted criminal proceedings to investigate the circumstances of the accident.

On various dates the applicants joined these proceedings as injured parties and civil claimants.

On unspecified dates ten military officers were indicted of various acts and omissions leading to the accident.

In November 2004 six defendants, including the two pilots and the supporting land crew, were committed to stand trial before the Central Region Military Court of Appeal to act as a first-instance court.

On 23 May 2005 the Central Region Military Court of Appeal pronounced a judgment with respect to the above six defendants. According to the court ’ s findings, the principal cause of the airplane crash was an incorrect performance by V. T. (the first pilot) of an aerobatics trick called “trunk”, which was neither envisaged by his mission order, nor practiced by him before the show. It was further found that the trick had been performed outside the designated aerobatics zone, which led to the falling of the airplane on the ground occupied by numerous spectators. The first pilot ’ s mistakes could have been corrected or the grave consequences of the accident could have been mitigated, were it not for the negligent performance on behalf of the second pilot, Colonel Y.Y., and the land crew, including Major-General A. T. and Colonels Y.Ya. and A.L. In particular, the second pilot Y. Y. failed to correct the mistakes by the first pilot, despite having the technical ability to do so. Major-General A.T., a designated chief of flights during the show, and Colonel Y.Ya., acting dispatcher, failed to warn the pilots when they had quit the designated aerobatics zone or take any action guiding them back to a zone safe for the spectators. Finally, Colonel A.L., being the chief of the 14 th Air Force Unit ’ s flight security service, failed to put in place any specific prevention measures plan, aiming to ensure security of the spectators in the face of a pilot ’ s mistake or any other unexpected turn of events during the show.

As a result, the court found V.T., Y . Y., A.T. and Y.Ya. guilty of breach of flight rules within the meaning of Article 416 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“CCU”) and sentenced them to fourteen, eight, six and five years ’ imprisonment respectively. It further found A. L. guilty of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of Article 425 of the CCU and sentenced him to four years ’ imprisonment suspended on probation.

The sixth defendant, Colonel O. D., who coordinated V.T. ’ s and Y.Y. ’ s training flights, issued the mission order and procured the airplane for the show, was found to have performed his duties in good faith and acquitted.

The court further ruled on the applicants ’ civil claims, awarding them various sums in damages (see Appendix for details).

The applicants appealed in cassation against this judgment, complaining, that the sums awarded to them in compensation were arbitrarily calculated and grossly inadequate.

Mrs T.O. Mindrova also submitted that it was discriminatory to value her nephew ’ s life less than the lives of the Russian nationals who had died in a crash of an airplane, suspected to have been accidentally shot by the Ukrainian military authorities on 4 October 2001. According to the terms of the settlement, Ukraine had paid ex gratia USD 200,000 (U.S. dollars) for each passenger killed.

On 2 March 2006 the Military Panel of the Supreme Court of Ukraine took the final decision rejecting the applicants ’ appeals.

It is not clear if and when the judgment awards were paid to the applicants.

In 2008 the remaining four military officers, indicted of various crimes in connection with the Sknyliv accident, were acquitted by the courts of two instances. The applicants did not inform the Court whether they participated in the proceedings at issue.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Criminal Code of Ukraine (“CCU”) of 2001

The relevant provisions of the CCU read as follows:

Article 416. Breach of Regulations concerning Flights or Preparation to Them

“Breach of regulations concerning flights or preparation to them, as well as breach of regulations concerning exploitation of flying devices that resulted in a catastrophe or other grave consequences, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for the term from five to fifteen years.” ...

Article 425. Negligent Attitude towards Military Service

“1. Negligent attitude of a military officer to his (her) service duties, in the event it caused significant damage shall be punished by a fine...

2. The same act, in the event it caused grave consequences, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for the term from three to seven years.” ...

COMPLAINTS

Mrs T.O. Mindrova complains under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention that the domestic courts awarded her insufficient compensation for the death of her nephew, who was in her foster care, and that this sum was significantly smaller than the sums paid for the deaths of the Russian nationals in the airplane crash of 4 October 2001.

All other applicants complain that the State failed to ensure their safety during the aviation show, that it was responsible for the applicants ’ bodily and psychological injuries and that the compensation awarded to them was arbitrarily calculated and grossly inadequate. They also complain that the compensation proceedings were lengthy and the sums awarded were not paid in good time.

Mr I.V. Tarabayev invokes Articles 6, 8 and 13 in respect of these complaints.

Mrs T.K. Gavrylova, Mr D.O. Gavrylov and Ms V.V. Petrik invoke Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention in respect of these complaints.

Messrs A.B. Chornyy, B.A. Chornyy and Mrs N.Y. Chorna invoke Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention in respect of the above complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

A. Application no. 32454/06

Did the State discharge its duty under Article 2 of the Convention to provide appropriate redress for the death of the applicant ’ s nephew Oleg Zheykov?

B. Other applications

1. Were the applicants ’ lives subjected to the risk attracting applicability of Article 2 of the Convention (see e.g. Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 52-55, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI)?

2. Did the State discharge in the applicants ’ respect its duties 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- 6, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII) and to provide appropriate redress for the breach of rights guaranteed by this provision?

3. Was the length of the criminal proceedings, in which the applicants acted as civil claimants, including the enforcement stage, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Parties are requested, in particular, to communicate the dates, on which the applicants received their judgment awards.

ANNEX

List of applicants

No./ date lodged

Applicant ’ s name

Reason for complaint

Damage claimed: pecuniary/non-pecuniary (hryvn i as)

Damage awarded: pecuniary/

non-pecuniary (hryvn i as)

1227/06

23.12.05

Gavrylova, Tetyana Kostyantynivna

Bodily injuries (wounds, abrasions, blunt injury of the left shin)

0/500,000 jointly w/ Gavrylov D. O.

0Gavrylov,

Denys Oleksandrovych

Bodily injuries (crashed right popliteal artery, crashed muscles of the right shin, multiple bruises and minor injuries)

714/1,000,000

0/30,000

17274/06

12.04.06

Tarabayev,

Igor Vladimir ovich

Bodily injuries (multiple comminuted fractures of abdominal bones; pubic joint rupture; extensive defect of skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscles of lumbar, sacral and buttock areas; traumatic-haemorrhagic shock; acute pulmonary trauma and other injuries)

11,310/

850,000

11,310/

40,000

21263/06

12.04.06

Petrik,

Viktoriya Vladimir ovna

Bodily injuries (contused and open head wounds, abrasions, post-traumatic stress reaction)

0/70,000

0/5,000

32454/06

05.08.06

Mindrova,

Tetyana Oleksiyivna

Death of Zheykov, Oleg Olegovych, nephew in foster care

0/1,066,000

95,000

36032/06

17.08.06

Chornyy,

Anton Bogdanovych

Bodily injuries (post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive syndrome)

4,420/200,000

240/3,000

Chorna,

Natalya Yaroslavivna

Bodily injuries (ankle injury, ligament rupture, contusion, hematoma, post-traumatic stress syndrome, asthenia, depressive neurosis)

5,170/200,000

3,115/5,000

Chornyy,

Bogdan Antonovych

Bodily injuries (contused head wound with a hematoma and concussion)

4,650/500,000

4,650/5,000