Last Updated on August 22, 2019 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 217
April 2018
Lozovyye v. Russia – 4587/09
Judgment 24.4.2018 [Section III]
Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Burial of a victim of a criminal act without taking reasonable steps to inform his relatives: violation
Facts – The applicants’ son was murdered in St Petersburg. While the authorities made some attempt to identify the relatives of the deceased, the son was buried in St Petersburg before that investigation process ended. The applicants later found out, exhumed his body and reburied him in their home town. Responding to their complaints about the authorities’ failure to notify them of their son’s death, a district court established that the investigator had not taken sufficient steps to find the relatives of the deceased, though the criminal case-file contained enough information to do so. Subsequently, the applicants instituted unsuccessful compensation proceedings.
Law – Article 8: The applicants’ right to respect for their private and family lives had been affected by the authorities’ failure to inform them, or even to take steps to inform them, of the death of their son before he had been buried. In situations such as the one in the instant case, where the State authorities, but not family members, were aware of a death, there was an obligation for the relevant authorities to at least undertake reasonable steps to ensure that surviving members of the family were informed.
As regards the relevant legal framework, there was no explicit obligation on the authorities to notify relatives of an individual who had died as a result of a criminal act, although there was a certain obligation to search for them for the purpose of granting them victim status in a criminal case. However, the lack of clarity in domestic law and practice was not sufficient in itself to find a violation of the respondent State’s positive obligations under Article 8.
Regarding whether the authorities had taken reasonable practical efforts, as followed from the domestic court’s findings, there were several avenues the authorities could have used to locate the applicants but had not done so. The decision to bury the applicants’ son had been taken before the search for his relatives had officially ended. In those circumstances and given the personal information about the deceased that was available, the authorities had not acted with reasonable diligence and, therefore, had not complied with their positive obligation in the present case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 539 jointly in respect of pecuniary damage.
Leave a Reply