BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 14011/08
Viktor Kirsanovich GEYEV and Viktor Viktorovich GEYEV
against Ukraine
lodged on 5 March 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The first applicant, Mr Victor Victorovich Geyev was born in 1950. The second applicant, Mr Viktor Kirsanovich Geyev was born in 1927. The applicants are Ukrainian nationals who live in Kirovske. Their application was lodged on 5 March 2008.

A.  The circumstances of the case

Mr Yuriy Viktorovich Geyev was a brother of the first applicant and a son of the second applicant.

Before his death, Yuriy Viktorovich Geyev occupied the post of Chairman of the Urology and Nephrology Department of Donetsk Medical University. According to the applicants, he had serious conflicts with some of his colleagues due to certain allegedly unlawful activity on their part concerning kidney transplantations.

1.  Circumstances of death of the applicant’s relative

At about 1.15 p.m. on 1 August 2000 Yuriy Viktorovich Geyev was stabbed in the entrance hall to his apartment. He was taken to the hospital on account of the injuries he had sustained but died on the same day.

2.  Official investigation

On 1 August 2000 the authorities opened an investigation into the murder. When the applicants were questioned, they specified that the deceased had been in serious conflict with some of his colleagues and suggested that those colleagues might have been involved in the murder.

During the investigation the applicants’ specific requests for information concerning results of the investigation and the actions taken by the law-enforcement authorities had been refused, either for the reason that that piece of information could not be divulged in the interests of the investigation (to preserve the secrecy of the investigation), or were replied to in general terms, that the necessary steps would be taken in due course.

In 2002 the investigation was allegedly closed; the applicants were not informed of that decision. On an unspecified date it was renewed.

In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the law-enforcement authorities informed the first applicant that the theory of involvement of the deceased’s colleagues in the murder was being further investigated, but that the measures taken had not yet yielded any tangible results; the evidence collected had been insufficient to bring charges against those persons.

On 11 May 2009 the first applicant was given victim status and his procedural rights, including the right to submit evidence, lodge requests, study the case file after the completion of the investigation, seek withdrawals and lodge complaints, were explained to him.

The proceedings are pending.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicants complain that the investigation of the circumstances of their relative’s death was not effective for the purpose of Article 2 of the Convention: the investigation was superficial and excessively lengthy; they had no access to the case file and could not effectively participate in the proceedings.

2.  The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.

3.  The applicants also complain of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of ineffectiveness of the investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, were the domestic proceedings in the present cases in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2.  Did the applicants have effective access to the case file regarding the investigation of the circumstances of their relative’s death (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 71-74, 24 June 2010)?

3.  Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide:

(a)  a chronological list of pre-investigative, investigative, and judicial actions taken in respect of the applicants’ complaints under the Convention;

(b)  copies of the relevant documents concerning respective domestic proceedings.