FIFTH SECTION CASE OF OSADCHA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 55896/10 and 6 other applications)    JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG11 March 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Osadcha and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Lɘtif Hüseynov, Mattias Guyomar, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the applications nos. 55896/10, 62237/13, 76514/13, 42644/16, 70352/16, 38653/18 and 47765/18 against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table;the decision to give notice of the applications to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”);the parties’ submissions;Having deliberated in private on 11 February 2021,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:INTRODUCTION1. The present applications concern the ineffective investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives, who died in road traffic accidents, under Article 2 of the Convention.THE FACTS2. The applicants’ details and the relevant facts are set out in the appended tables.3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single judgment, given that they raise similar issues under the Convention.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicants complained that the investigations into the deaths of their relatives were ineffective. They relied on Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.6. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012). This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.”Admissibility7. In the application no. 62237/13 the Government informed the Court that they were not in a position to submit observations on the case as it was impossible for them to obtain copies of the case files held by courts located in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The Court notes that initially the Government did not provide observations or any explanations for not doing so within the time-limit fixed by the Court. Later the Government, in their comments on the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction, informed the Court that they had no opportunity to submit their position in this case, given that all relevant documents had remained on the territory of Crimea and had not been accessible for the Ukrainian Government. The Court further notes that the criminal proceedings in relation to the death of the applicant’s husband had already ended on 5 April 2013 by the final decision of the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal and the key procedural documents as regards the criminal proceedings in question, as provided by the applicant, were sent to the Government in attachment to the letter giving notice of the application to the Government. Given that the Government did not provide any explanations as to why they could not submit their observations based on these documents, the Court considers that it can proceed with the examination of the case on the basis of the documents as submitted by the applicant.8. The Government submitted no observations as to the admissibility of the remaining applications.9. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.MeritsThe parties’ submissions10. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the Convention. They noted in particular that the investigating authorities had instituted criminal investigations into the applicants’ relatives’ deaths in a timely manner. The competent investigating authorities had acted diligently and promptly; they had done everything possible to investigate the circumstances of the cases; and the length of the investigations had been justified by the necessity to carry out a significant number of investigative actions.11. In applications nos. 55896/10, 42644/16 and 70352/16 the applicants did not accept the Government’s assertions that effective investigations had been carried out. They contended that the investigating authorities had not acted promptly and had not secured evidence of the incidents. The applicants also argued that the investigations had not been structured and had been marked by tactical shortcomings, which had undermined any possibility of identifying those responsible or establishing their relatives’ cause of death.The Court’s assessment12.

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