Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.09.2010 «Дело Корогодина (Korogodina) против России» [англ.]

iod.

D. Code of Criminal Procedure

46. If criminal proceedings are discontinued at the investigation stage, an aggrieved person who joined the proceedings as a civil party may lodge a separate civil claim unless the proceedings were discontinued on the ground that (a) the alleged offence had not been committed (otsutstvie sobytiya prestupleniya) or (b) the suspect had not been involved in its commission (Article 213 § 4 and Articles 24 § 1 (1) and 27 § 1 (1)).
47. If the defendant is acquitted by the trial court on the ground that (a) the alleged offence was not committed or (b) the defendant was not involved in its commission, the trial court will dismiss the civil claim. If the defendant is acquitted for lack of corpus delicti (Article 24 § 1 (2)), the trial court will disallow the civil claim but it may be lodged again in civil proceedings (Article 306 § 2).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

48. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that proceedings in relation to the investigation into her son's death had been unreasonably long. The Court will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, which, so far as it is relevant, provides as follows:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law..."
49. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the Russian investigating and judicial authorities had conducted a thorough, comprehensive and objective investigation into the applicant's allegations concerning the cause of her son's death. The forensic experts, on whose findings the authorities had based their findings, had been independent and impartial and had presented their opinions after having reviewed all the pertaining materials. As it had been established, the applicant's son had received due and proper medical treatment conducted by competent medical professionals and his death had not resulted from medical negligence. The investigation had been effective as required by Article 2 of the Convention.
50. The applicant maintained her complaint. She submitted that the case had not been of extreme complexity and that nothing had prevented the authorities from completing the investigation promptly.

A. Admissibility

51. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

52. The general principles concerning the procedural obligation of the State under Article 2 of the Convention in the public health domain are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see {Silih} v. Slovenia [GC], No. 71463/01, 9 April 2009):
"192. As the Court has held on several occasions, the procedural obligation of Article 2 requires the States to set up an effective independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see, among other authorities, [Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], No. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I], and Powell v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), No. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).
193. The Court reiterates that this procedural obligation is not an obligation of result but of means only (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).
194. Even if the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties, the Court has said many times that the effective judicial system required by Article 2 may, and under certa



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 9

	Поделиться:	Tweet