CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 June 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31155/21 Lyudmyla Petrivna KOKUL and Dmytro Karpovych KOKUL against Ukraine lodged on 8 June 2021 communicated on 16 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ daughter resulting from an accident involving an elevator. On 2 March 2012 the applicants’ 36-year-old daughter, T., sustained severe bodily injuries in an elevator due to its technical malfunctioning, which led to her instant death. The applicants assert that the elevator, installed in 1979, exceeded its intended lifespan of 25 years. Since 2009, it was serviced by a private company P. under a contract with a municipal service provider, company K., which was responsible for the control of the proper maintenance of the elevator as its owner. A few hours before the incident, the relevant service conducted an inspection, deeming the elevator safe for use. On 20 March 2012 criminal proceedings on account of negligence were instituted against B., an employee of company K. Within these proceedings, the applicants filed a civil claim. On an unknown date, purportedly in 2015, four more employees of companies P. and K. were notified of suspicion of negligence by a local prosecutor. In April 2021 the criminal proceedings were separated into five sets and terminated – one due to the death of the accused in 2020, and the remaining four due to prescription. On 23 November 2022 the second applicant, T.’s father, died. The applicants complained under Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the Convention that the State, responsible for the proper functioning of the elevator, had failed to ensure its secure operation and to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the events. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ daughter’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case conducted by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   3.     Was the length of the consideration of the applicants’ civil claim, lodged within the criminal proceedings, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?