CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 February 2011 and 10 March 2015     FIRST SECTION Application no. 45104/05 Mikhail Aleksandrovich KOTELNIKOV against Russia lodged on 7 November 2005     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS     1.     Has the State complied with its positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to set up an effective judicial system to provide appropriate redress where a life-threatening injury occurs (see Igor Shevchenko v.   Ukraine, no. 22737/04, 12   January 2012)? In particular, was the investigation into the circumstances of the accident effective within the meaning of that provision, and was the applicant provided with an adequate compensatory remedy against the perpetrator?   2.     Did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the right to physical integrity in the instant case (see S.B. v. Romania , no.   24453/04, 23 September 2014)?