European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 6136/09
Oleksandra Mykhaylivna TYULYAKOVA
against Ukraine
lodged on 19 January 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Oleksandra Mykhaylivna Tyulyakova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Krasnodon. Her application was lodged on 19 January 2009.

A.  The circumstances of the case

1.  Circumstances of death of the applicant’s relative

The applicant’s son, Mr Vasyl Tyulyakov (born in 1976) was a miner working at a coal mine in Lugansk region.

On 11 March 2000 as a result of an explosion eighty people died in the coal mine, including the applicant’s son.

2.  Official investigation

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted to investigate the circumstances of the accident. In the course of investigation two managers of the mine were charged with violation of safety rules at an enterprise posing a risk of explosions causing deaths; three other managers were charged with negligent performance of their duties causing grievous consequences.

On 6 June 2001 a local court convicted those managers as charged. Two of the defendants were sentenced to five-year prison terms, one was sentenced to a three-and-a-half-year prison term with a three-year ban on occupying management posts in the coalmining industry. The other two defendants were given suspended sentences.

On 18 September 2001 the court of appeal reduced the sentences of three of the defendants.

On 1 September 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts, finding that the sentences imposed had been too lenient in view of the consequences of those crimes. The case was remitted to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.

On 23 January 2008 the local court convicted four managers of the mine and sentenced them as follows: (1) seven years’ imprisonment; (2) five and a half years’ imprisonment; (3) three and a half years’ imprisonment with a two-year ban on occupying management posts; (4) three years’ imprisonment with a two-year ban on occupying management posts. The court further disjoined the applicant’s civil claim from the criminal case for a separate examination in the civil proceedings. The civil proceedings are pending.

On 1 April 2008 the court of appeal quashed the judgment in respect of two of the defendants, for the reason that their prosecution was time-barred.

On 13 October 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

According to the applicant she has not been paid social security payments on account of the death of her son.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the proceedings against those guilty of causing the death of her son were excessively lengthy and ineffective and that she had not been offered any pecuniary compensation for the loss of her son’s life.

2.  The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning her civil claim for damages lasted too long.

3.  The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.

4.  The applicant complains under 12 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the domestic proceedings against the managers of the mine were ineffective.

5.  The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that she was not paid social security payments on account of the death of her son.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, were the domestic proceedings in the present cases in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2.  Was the length of the domestic proceedings, relating to the determination of the applicant’s right to compensation, in breach of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide copies of documents concerning the applicant’s civil claim for compensation of damage.

3.  Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide:

(a)  a chronological list of pre-investigative, investigative, and judicial actions taken in respect of the applicant’s complaints under the Convention;

(b)  copies of the relevant documents concerning respective domestic proceedings.