The applicant complained of ineffective investigation into the death of her husband, who had died in a traffic accident.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Bozhenko v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President, Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 10 July 2014.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Mr O. Suprun, a lawyer practising in Kyrylivka.<\/p>\n 3. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of ineffective investigation into the death of her husband, who had died in a traffic accident.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into the\u00a0death of her husband in a traffic accident. She relied on Articles\u00a02, 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 7. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article\u00a02 of the Convention (see\u00a0Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a022737\/04, \u00a7 38, 12 January 2012). This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 2 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201c1. Everyone\u2019s right to life shall be protected by law.\u201d<\/p>\n 8. The Court notes at the outset that the present case falls to be examined from the perspective of the State\u2019s obligation to conduct an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation were summarized in Mustafa Tun\u00e7 and Fecire Tun\u00e7 v.\u00a0Turkey [GC] (no.\u00a024014\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 169-82, 14 April 2015). In particular, once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the\u00a0procedural requirement of Article 2 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the\u00a0promptness of the investigation, the involvement of the deceased person\u2019s family, and the independence of the investigation. These elements are inter\u2011related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an\u00a0end in itself (ibid., \u00a7\u00a0225).<\/p>\n 9. Moreover, this is not an obligation of results to be achieved but of means to be employed. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the claimant\u2019s account of events. However, it should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477\/99, \u00a7 71, ECHR 2002-II).<\/p>\n 10. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the investigation was marked by various shortcomings, which had undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant\u2019s husband, and who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 11. In the leading cases of Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151\/10, 5\u00a0November 2015), Pozhyvotko v.\u00a0Ukraine (no. 42752\/08, 17 October 2013) and Kachurka v.\u00a0Ukraine (no. 4737\/06, 15 September 2011), the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.<\/p>\n 13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a02 of the Convention under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 74-80, 5\u00a0November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and it rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant.<\/p>\n 16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the\u00a0Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant\u2019s husband;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the\u00a0currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n 4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF BOZHENKO v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 42595\/14)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 October 2021<\/p>\n
\nJovan Ilievski,
\nMattias Guyomar, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(ineffective investigation into death, caused by private parties or in circumstances that exclude involvement of State agents)<\/p>\n