ECtHR Cases April–June 2020
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2032284420945054 |
| Author | Ben Wild |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | ECtHR Update |
ECtHR Update
ECtHR Cases
April–June 2020
Ben Wild
Senior Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service
Article 2
Vardosanidze v Georgia (no 43881/10)
The applicant, Lali Vardosanidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kutaisi
(Georgia). The case concerned the death of the applicant’s son from carbon monoxide poisoning,
which she alleged had been the result of the failure to adequately regulate and supervise the use of
gas-operated household devices in Georgia.
The applicant’s son was found dead on 30 April 2008 in the apartment he rented with his
grandmother in Tbilisi. The autopsy concluded that the cause of death was asphyxiation from
carbon monoxide poisoning. Approximately 10 months earlier, gas inspectors from
Kaztransgaz-Tbilisi, the only company licensed to distribute natural gas in Tbilisi, had carried
out a safety check at the applicant’s son’s flat and discovered that a gas-operated water heater
had been incorrectly installed. According to the inspection record, they had therefore ‘dis-
connected the water heater, sealed the gas meter in cellophane and provided the resident ...
with instructions’.
As part of the subsequent criminal investigation into the death, the inspectors stated that they had
warned the applicant’s family about the risks associated with using such a water heater and that it
should not be reconnected. They also later specified that there was a ban on installing gas-operated
water heaters in buildings with five or morefloors, such as the building where the applicant’s son was
renting, as they lacked chimney systems and could not be adequately ventilated.
The investigation was closed in October 2009, concluding on accidental death. It found
that the applicant’s son had been responsible for the accident because he must have recon-
nected the water heater, in breach of safety standards and despite the warning from the gas
company. That finding was upheld by the domestic courts, in a final decision handed down in
December 2009.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complained that the Georgian Government had
been aware that there had been a widespread problem of poisoning from carbon monoxide and
should have taken measures to protect her son’s life and that the investigation into his death had not
been effective. She also alleged under Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the
examination of the case) that the Government had failed to submit crucial documents from the
criminal case file during the proceedings before the European Court.
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 11(3) 411–432
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2032284420945054
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
Outcome
No violation of Article 2
No violation of Article 38
Danciu and Others vRomania (no 48395/16)
The applicants are a Romanian family, a mother, Sava Danciu, her two sons, Dumitru Danciu and
Ionuc Danciu, and daughter, Lupa Timis¸. They were born in 1954, 1975, 1986 and 1974, respec-
tively, and live in Bors¸a (Romania), San Giuliano Milanese and Como (Italy). The case concerned
the alleged attempt to murder their relative.
In September 2008, the local Bors¸a police were called to an altercation outside a restaurant
involving the applicants’ relative (husband and father, respectively), but by the time they arrived
he had already been taken to hospital with an open head injury and concussion. When questioned
there he stated that he had been sprayed with tear gas and att acked with a wooden bat. The
applicants’ relative filed a cri minal complaint in November 2008, naming five people as his
attackers. The prosecutor heard the victim in February 2009 and, after he complained about the
protracted length of the proceedings, questioned the five suspects in May 2009 and, a few months
later, the witnesses indicated by the parties.
One of the suspects was eventually indicted in 2010 for hitting the applicants’ relative and other
forms of violence, as well as with causing a serious disturbance of public order. That legal
classification was subsequently changed during the criminal case before the courts to attempted
first-degree murder. The criminal proceedings ended, however, in 2016 with an acquittal because
of lack of incriminating evidence. The applicants’ relative had died in 2011 while the proceedings
were still ongoing. A medical report concluded that there was no causal link between his death and
the cranial injury he had sustained during the attack.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants mainly com-
plained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and speedy investigation into the
alleged attempt to murder their relative.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2
Just satisfaction. EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8000 for costs and expenses.
Jabłon
´ska vPoland (no 24913/15)
The applicant,Teresa Jabłon´ska, is a Polishnational who was born in 1954 andlives in Warsaw. The
case concernedthe death of her son following an attempt to arrest him during a routine policecheck.
On 18 June 2013, the applicant’s son, DJ, was stopped at a police checkpoint for a random
search of his car. The officers found two small packets of white powder and decided to arrest him.
When he started to walk away, two officers tried but failed to overpower him and a struggle ensued
with six more officers who arrived on the scene. After the officers managed to restrain and
handcuff him, they realised that he was not breathing. All resuscitation attempts, by two officers,
two passing paramedics and an ambulance crew called to the scene, were unsuccessful, and DJ was
pronounced dead on site.
Criminal proceedings were instituted the next day and the prosecuting authorities took witness
statements and collected evidence. The autopsy concluded that the cause of death had been acute
412 New Journal of European Criminal Law 11(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial