FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF BASYUK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 51151/10)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG  5 November 2015 FINAL 05/02/2016 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Basyuk v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ganna Yudkivska, Vincent A. De Gaetano, André Potocki, Aleš Pejchal, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2015,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 51151/10) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Viktor Ivanovych Basyuk (“the applicant”), on 26 August 2010.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr B. Babin, of the Ministry of Justice.3. The applicant alleged that there had been no effective investigation of the traffic accident, which had resulted in the death of his daughter.4. On 29 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Odessa.6. On 4 September 2005 the applicant’s daughter, Ms Ye., and her child D., when crossing a road, were hit by a car driven by Ms M. It appears that the driver called an ambulance and the police. According to her statements to the police, Ms Ye. and the child had stopped at first in the middle of the road giving her the impression that they would wait until the car passed, but then had unexpectedly started running further across the road making the collision inevitable.7. On the same day the police inspected the site and questioned some witnesses. They submitted that Ms. Ye. and her daughter had been crossing the road at some distance from the marked pedestrian crossing.8. On 21 November 2005 the applicant’s daughter died in hospital. As to the injuries of his granddaughter, they were not dangerous for life.9. On 12 December 2005 a forensic medical examination of the body of Ms Ye., which had been started on 23 November 2005, was completed. It established that she had died from the injuries sustained in the accident. The expert also established the victim’s position in respect of the car at the collision.10. On 28 December 2005 another expert report was issued. It stated that it had been technically impossible for Ms M. to avoid the accident.11. On 29 December 2005 an investigator of the Traffic Accidents Investigation Unit of the Odessa Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior (слідчий відділу розслідування дорожньо-транспортних пригод ГУ МВС в Одеській області) delivered a ruling refusing to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the accident. It was established that Ms Ye. and her daughter had been crossing the road unexpectedly and not on a pedestrian crossing, and when the driver, Ms M., had seen them, it had been technically impossible for her to avoid the accident.12. On unspecified dates thereafter three additional witnesses of the accident, whom the applicant had identified in the meantime, stated that the collision had taken place at the pedestrian crossing.13. The Government submitted to the Court a copy of the notarised agreement of 14 March 2006 signed by Ms M. and her father, for one part, and the applicant, his wife, Ms Ye.’s widower Mr Dr. (the applicant’s son-in-law) and Ms Y.A., another daughter of Ms Ye., for the other part. Its contents are as follows. Ms M. and her father undertook to pay the other party UAH 101,000 (then equivalent of about 16,700 euros (EUR)) “in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident”. This obligation would be considered discharged if the payment was made to anyone of the cosignatories for the other party. It was additionally noted that, by that time, Ms M. had also paid UAH 87,264 (then equivalent of EUR 14,400) in respect of the victims’ medical treatment. In exchange, the victims’ family undertook not to seek initiation of criminal proceedings and not to lodge any claims or complaints against Ms M. In case they did not comply, they would have to pay back to Ms M., within three days, the amount of the compensation received. As an attachment to the agreement, there was a receipt signed by Mr Dr., the applicant’s son-in-law, in confirmation that he had received the money in question.14. The case file did not contain any further information or documents regarding the aforementioned agreement or any follow-up to it. The applicant neither mentioned it in any of his submissions to the Court nor commented on it in reply to the Government’s observations.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 2
Outcome: violation