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 6 February 2019.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Leontyev v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2022,<\/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 6 February 2019.<\/p>\n 2. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into the death of his daughter, who died in a traffic accident.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into the death of his daughter, who died in a traffic accident. He relied on Article\u00a02\u00a0and Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6. The Court, which is the 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 (seeIgor 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 7. 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 summarised in Mustafa Tun\u00e7 and FecireTun\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 procedural requirement of Article\u00a02 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness 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 end in itself (ibid., \u00a7\u00a0225).<\/p>\n 8. 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\u00a071, ECHR 2002-II).<\/p>\n 9. 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 daughter, and who, if anyone, was responsible. The specificshortcomings are indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 10. In the leading cases of Kachurka v.\u00a0Ukraine (no. 4737\/06, 15\u00a0September 2011), Pozhyvotko v.\u00a0Ukraine (no. 42752\/08, 17 October 2013), and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151\/10, 5\u00a0November 2015) the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 11. 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 and the materials before it, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.<\/p>\n 12. 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<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. 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 14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Basyuk, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 74-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 15. The Court further 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 Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant\u2019s daughter;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n ViktoriyaMaradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF LEONTYEV v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 9262\/19)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n6 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107,
\nKate\u0159ina\u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand ViktoriyaMaradudina,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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