FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF USACHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 69557/13)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG25 April 2024  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Usachenko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2024,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four applicants, Mr Dmitriy Usachenko (“the first applicant”), Mrs Anastasiya Tsykolenko (“the second applicant”), Mr Nikolay Tsykolenko (“the third applicant”) and Mrs Anna Dyachenko (“the fourth applicant”, the mother of Ms T.), on 17 October 2013.2. After the death of the third applicant on 31 July 2018, his civil wife, Ms Halyna Tsykolenko, expressed her wish to pursue the application on his behalf. In a number of cases, in which an applicant has died in the course of proceedings, the Court has taken into account statements of the applicant’s heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court even where the complaint before the Court concerned complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, 15 December 2015; Kardava v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 19886/09, 17 December 2019). Therefore, the Court considers that Ms Halyna Tsykolenko has a legitimate interest to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS4. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 § 1 of the Convention5. The applicants complained of the lengthy and ineffective investigation into a car accident, without involvement of State agents. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 2 § 1 of the Convention.6. The relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation were summarised in Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC] (no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015). In particular, once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the procedural requirement of Article 2 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’s family, and the independence of the investigation. These elements are inter‑related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself (ibid., § 225).7. 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’s 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, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).8. The Court notes that in the present case, the traffic accident (described in the attached table below) was investigated, and later the case was heard in a court located on the territory where, in April 2014, illegal armed groups associated with two self-proclaimed entities known as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” began operating, seizing control of certain parts of those regions by force. A ceasefire line was later put in place (see Vyshnyakov v. Ukraine, no. 25612/12, § 20, 24 July 2018, and Burgas v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 8976/07, § 26, 18 December 2018). However, for the purposes of the examination of the present case, it is not necessary to determine whether the respondent State may be held responsible for conduction of the investigation after that date. The Court will proceed with assessing the period preceding the outbreak of hostilities (see, for the same approach, Burgas, cited above, § 39).9. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of above principles, the Court considers that the investigation was marked by shortcomings, such as repeated remittals of the case for additional investigation and lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case.10. In the leading cases of Kachurka v. Ukraine (no. 4737/06, 15 September 2011), Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine (no. 42752/08, 17 October 2013) and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151/10, 5 November 2015) the Court has already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.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, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Basyuk, cited above, §§ 74-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

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