JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CASADEVALL AND JUDGE NUSSBERGER

The present case concerns an ineffective investigation into a fatal traffic accident. It is similar to numerous earlier cases against Ukraine on the same matter and clearly points to a systemic problem.

This fact does not, however, absolve the applicant from providing the Court with all the relevant information on the facts of the case.

About six months after the accident, on 14 March 2006, when the instigation of the criminal proceedings had been rejected for the first time by an investigating officer from the Traffic Accidents Investigation Union of the Odessa Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior, the applicant, together with his family (his wife, his son-in-law, and his daughter) concluded a notarised agreement with the driver potentially responsible for the accident and her father. Against the payment of EUR 31,100 the applicant and his family members undertook not to bring criminal proceedings and not to lodge any claims or complaints against the driver. It is unclear if this agreement was in conformity with national law. In any case, it is undisputed that the applicant ’ s son-in-law received the money in question and that the obligation was discharged on the basis of the clear stipulation in the treaty that the payment could be made to any of the cosignatories (§ 13). The applicant ’ s reply that it was not he personally who received the money (§ 14) is thus irrelevant. The complaint seeking the termination of the agreement and the recovery of the amounts paid was withdrawn for reasons unknown (§ 31).

In our view the existence of the agreement and the payment of the sum of EUR 31,100 are important aspects of the case which the applicant has failed to reveal to the Court. It is relevant for assessing the applicant ’ s (material) interest in the outcome of the criminal investigation which would usually serve as a basis for a civil claim (§ 60). It is also relevant for the Court ’ s assessment of the non-pecuniary damage to be granted to the applicant if his complaint is considered well-founded (§ 73).

According to the well-established case-law of the Court, failure to inform the Court of relevant factual circumstances may amount to abuse of the right of individual petition, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, e.g., Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Predescu v. Romania , no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008, and Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007).

The Court can raise such an objection to the admissibility of the case of its own motion (see Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004, and Duringer and Grunge v. France (dec.), nos. 61164/00 and 18589/02, ECHR 2003-II).

In the present case the applicant argued that he had signed the agreement without reading it while being affected by the stress and sorrow caused by the death of his only child (§ 14). In our view that does not justify the failure to inform the Court of the agreement and the payment four years later when lodging the application.

We think that sincere cooperation by the applicants with the Court is a precondition for the Court ’ s effective functioning. T he Court must therefore make clear that it cannot proceed with the examination of complaints where the applicants withhold parts of the relevant information.

Consequently, the Court should have declared the complaint inadmissible on the basis of Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention