SOBOLEVSKIY AND TYUNINA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

 
Communicated on 4 February 2019
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 24273/11
Vladimir Nikolayevich SOBOLEVSKIY and
Lyudmila Georgiyevna TYUNINA against Russia
and 5 other applications – see appended list
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants complained under various Convention provisions that their close family members had died as a result of various incidents allegedly caused by third private parties and that the State failed appropriately to react to these deaths. All of the applicants submitted that their attempts to initiate criminal investigation in connection with the incidents proved futile. Some of the applicants applied to domestic courts with tort claims and also complained that the amount of granted awards was too low (see the attached table for details).
 
The relevant details regarding the applicants’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices. The information regarding the alleged breaches of the Convention provisions in contained in Appendix no. 1. The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants’ complaints is reflected in Appendix no. 2.
 
The table of cases:
 
No.
Application number
Introduction date
Name of the applicant(s); date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
1.
24273/11
31/03/2011
Vladimir Nikolayevich SOBOLEVSKIY
05/12/1980
Dzerzhinsk
Lyudmila Georgiyevna TYUNINA
19/09/1959
Dzerzhinsk
 
2.
24636/11
31/03/2011
Nikolay Vladimirovich TYUNIN
21/07/1957
Dzerzhinsk
 
3.
16283/14
10/04/2014
Lyudmila Kirillovna GRACHEVA
10/09/1944
Panino District of the Voronezh Region
 
4.
60946/14
24/08/2014
Natalya Yevgenyevna KUZNETSOVA
02/09/1974
Ostashkov, the Tver Region
 
5.
55084/17
24/07/2017
Vladimir Nikolayevich STEPANOV
17/11/1949
St Petersburg
Dmitriy Sergeyevich MEDNIKOV, Moscow
6.
73932/17
24/07/2017
Valeriy Yuriyevich GLAZKOV
27/06/1953
St Petersburg
Dmitriy Sergeyevich MEDNIKOV, Moscow
QUESTIONS
Having regard to the positive obligation of Article 2 of the Convention, can it be said that this Convention provision has been complied with in the present cases. The Government are requested to comment in detail on the following questions:
 
Have the applicants exhausted the available and effective domestic remedies in their cases, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
 
As to the criminal complaints:
 
- was the State’s positive obligation under Article 2 to institute and conduct a criminal investigation into the alleged events leading to death of the applicants’ relatives complied with?
 
As to the civil complaints:
 
- were the amounts granted by the domestic courts to some of the applicants (see the table below) compatible with the requirements of the positive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention?
 
- given the findings and awards of the domestic courts in civil cases brought by some of the applicants (see the table below), can it be said that the applicants may still claim to be victims of a violation of the positive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in connection with the death of their relatives?
 

 
No.
 
Application No. and Title
 
APPENDIX No. 1
Article 2 - Substantive aspect
Deceased relative
Events surrounding death
Case-file materials
Name and date of birth
Date and location of death
Kinship to the applicant
Date
Time
Location
Alleged Facts
Perpetrator(s)
The applicant’s complaints
Use of other remedies in the domestic legal system
1.
24273/11
Sobolevskiy and Tyunina
v. Russia
Mr E.N. Tyunin
1983
06/03/2008, in a hospital
The applicant’s brother and son respectively
3/03/2008,
11 PM
Next to Privokzalnaya Square of Dzerzhinsk
The applicant’s brother and son fell into a pit of boiling hot water which had formed as a result of a technical accident of a underground hot water pipe (possibly for the lack of maintenance)
Employees of OAO NKS
Without referring to any Convention provision the applicant complains about ineffectiveness of criminal investigation
Article 6: the applicant complains that the amount of compensations paid to victims in this type of cases in Russia is manifestly insufficient to deter re-offending
By judgment of 28/09/2010 of the Dzerzhinsk Town Court of the Nizhegorodskiy Region the applicant was granted RUB 150000 (non‑pecuniary damage, around EUR 5000) to be paid by OAO NKS
2.
24636/11
Tyunin
v. Russia
Mr E.N. Tyunin
1983
06/03/2008, in a hospital
The applicant’s son
3/03/2008,
11 PM
Next to Privokzalnaya Square of Dzerzhinsk
The applicant’s son fell into a pit of boiling hot water which had formed as a result of a technical accident of a underground hot water pipe (possibly for the lack of maintenance)
Employees of OAO NKS
Without referring to any Convention provision the applicant complains about ineffectiveness of criminal investigation
Article 6: the applicant complains that the amount of compensations paid to victims in this type of cases in Russia is manifestly insufficient to deter re-offending
By judgment of 28/09/2010 of the Dzerzhinsk Town Court of the Nizhegorodskiy Region the applicant was granted RUB 19950 (pecuniary damage, around EUR 665), 150000 (non-pecuniary damage, around EUR 5000) to be paid by OAO NKS
3.
16283/14
Gracheva
v. Russia
Mr G.A. Lachkov
09/07/2010, next to the building of middle school in the village of Panino
The applicant’s son
09/07/2010
11 AM
next to the building of middle school in the village of Panino
As a result of a breach of security regulations during excavation works, Mr G.A. Lachkov, a worker, fell in the excavation pit and died of asphyxia
An acting head of the city council who gave an informal order to carry out the excavations
Articles 2 and 13: ineffective and slow reaction to the death of the applicant’s son, inability to prosecute the perpetrators; Article 6: unfairness of court proceedings
By judgment of 16/12/2010 of the Panino District Court of the Voronezh Region the applicant was granted RUB 180000 (around EUR 6000) and RUB 4400 for legal costs to be paid by the municipal school (not clear if the judgment has been appealed against by the applicant)
4.
60946/14
Kuznetsova
v. Russia
Mr S.A. Kuznetsov,
2000
02/07/2011,
6.25 AM, Ostashkov
The applicant’s son
02/07/2011
A street in Ostashkov
A high voltage electricity incident resulting in death of the applicant’s son;
Mr S.A. Kuznetsov touched the surface of a garage box which was improperly connected to the grid
Employees of OOO REK (electricity service company): Mr Ch. and M L.
Article 13 and 6: ineffective and slow reaction to the death of the applicant’s son, lack of effective remedies to bring perpetrators to justice
The file contains no indication whether a tort claim has been brought against OOO REK
5.
55084/17 Stepanov
v. Russia
Mr V.V. Stepanov
5/11/2007
The applicant’s son
5/11/2007, 8.50 PM
A street in St Petersburg
Road traffic accident, the applicant’s son drove a car which collided with a snow cleaning truck belonging to OAO Kolomyazhskoye
The driver of the truck was tried, but later proceedings were discontinued
Article 2: ineffective investigation and inability to obtain justice
Article 2 in conjunction with Article 13: the general ineffectiveness of domestic remedies
Claimed compensation for delays in the criminal proceedings; applied with a tort claim against the owner of the truck (the outcome is unclear)
6.
73932/17
Glazkov
v. Russia
Mr Yu.V. Glazkov
5/11/2007,
8.50 PM,
St Petersburg
The applicant’s son
5/11/2007, 8.50 PM
A street in St Petersburg
Road traffic accident, the applicant’s son was in a passanger’s seat of a car of Mr V.V. Stepanov which collided with a snow cleaning truck belonging to OAO Kolomyazhskoye
The driver of the truck was tried, but later proceedings were discontinued
Article 2: ineffective investigation and inability to obtain justice
Article 2 in conjunction with Article 13: the general ineffectiveness of domestic remedies
Claimed compensation for delays in the criminal proceedings; applied with a tort claim against the owner of the truck (the outcome is unclear)
 


No.
Application No. and Title
APPENDIX No. 2
Article 2 - Procedural aspect
DOMESTIC COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT REACTION
Date of
Complaint
Authority
Type of
Reaction
Date(s)
Procedural Outcome
1.
24273/11
Sobolevskiy and Tyunina v. Russia
17/03/2008
The department of the interior of the Investigative Committee of the Nizhegorodskiy Region
Multiple refusals
17/03/2008; 18/03/2008; 06/06/2008; 01/09/2008; 08/09/2008; 31/10/2008; 21/11/2008; 11/02/2009; 16/02/2009; 04/03/2009; 13/03/2009; 26/03/2009; 31/03/2009; 10/04/2009; 16/04/2009; 05/06/2009; 19/06/2009; 07/12/2009; 25/12/2009; 30/12/2009; 18/10/2009; 01/02/2010; 07/05/2010; 30/08/2010; 02/11/2010; 29/12/2011
Delays and eventual inability to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, the current state of the proceedings is unclear
2.
24636/11
Tyunin v. Russia
17/03/2008
The department of the interior of the Investigative Committee of the Nizhegorodskiy Region
Multiple refusals
17/03/2008; 18/03/2008; 06/06/2008; 01/09/2008; 08/09/2008; 31/10/2008; 21/11/2008; 11/02/2009; 16/02/2009; 04/03/2009; 13/03/2009; 26/03/2009; 31/03/2009; 10/04/2009; 16/04/2009; 05/06/2009; 19/06/2009; 07/12/2009; 25/12/2009; 30/12/2009; 18/10/2009; 01/02/2010; 07/05/2010; 30/08/2010; 02/11/2010; 29/12/2011
Delays and eventual inability to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, the current state of the proceedings is unclear
3.
16283/14
Gracheva v. Russia
15/09/2010
Panino District Prosecutor’s office
Multiple refusals
05/04/2012; 29/05/2012; 08/10/2012; 08/02/2013; 19/07/2013; 09/08/2013; 24/03/2014
On 5/12/2011 the criminal case was instituted, but then over ten times suspended or discontinued
4.
60946/14
Kuznetsova v. Russia
unclear
Ostashkovskiy Interdistrict Investigative authority of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Tver Region
Multiple refusal, eventual decision to discontinue the proceedings with reference to the expiry of the two year time-limit
16/09/2011
On 24/10/2011 the investigation (infliction of death through negligence) was instituted; on 6/11/2011 the case sent to the prosecutor’s office for approval; on 19/11/2012 the case was returned for further investigation; after multiple and long delays on 15/08/2013 the case was discontinued with reference to the expiry of the two year time-limit; this decision was upheld at first instance on 10/12/2013 and then on appeal on 24/02/2014
5.
55084/17
Stepanov v. Russia
6/11/2007
Primorsk District Department of the Interior of St Petersburg
Consistent and multiple refusals (14 times), an attempt to trial, which ended in the expiry of a six year time limit for prosecution
6/12/2007; 14/03/2008; 21/04/2008; 30/06/2008; 30/07/2008; 01/09/2008; 01/10/2008; 01/11/2008; 9/12/2008; 16/12/2008; 9/12/2009
From 25/05/2009 until 19/05/2016 court proceedings, on the latter date the proceedings were discontinued due to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution. Latest decisions: 24/01/2017 (St Petersburg City Court), 2/03/2017 (Constitutional Court)
6.
73932/17
Glazkov v. Russia
6/11/2007
Primorsk District Department of the Interior of St Petersburg
Consistent and multiple refusals (14 times), an attempt to trial, which ended in the expiry of a six year time limit for prosecution
6/12/2007; 14/03/2008; 21/04/2008; 30/06/2008; 30/07/2008; 01/09/2008; 01/10/2008; 01/11/2008; 9/12/2008; 16/12/2008; 9/12/2009
From 25/05/2009 until 19/05/2016 court proceedings, on the latter date the proceedings were discontinued due to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution. Latest decisions: 24/01/2017 (St Petersburg City Court), 2/03/2017 (Constitutional Court)
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy