Admissibility Decision Gongadze v. Ukraine

STRASBOURG, France -- The European Court of Human Rights has declared admissible the application lodged in the case of Gongadze v. Ukraine. The decision is available today on the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int). Judgment will be delivered at a later date. (The decision is available only in English.)

The applicant

The applicant, Myroslava Gongadze, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and currently lives in Arlington in the United States of America.

Summary of the facts

Georgiy Gongadze, the applicant’s husband, was a political journalist and editor-in-chief of the “Ukrainskaya Pravda” internet journal. He was known for his criticism of those in power and for his active involvement in Ukraine and abroad in raising awareness about the lack of freedom of speech in his country. He reported on, for example, corruption among high level State officials.

Mr Gongadze disappeared on 16 September 2000 under circumstances that have not yet been established by the Ukrainian authorities despite the numerous demands and requests of the applicant.

For months prior to his disappearance Mr Gongadze had complained to his relatives and colleagues that he was being subjected to threats and surveillance.

On 17 September 2000 the applicant petitioned Moskovskiy District Police Department of Kyiv about the disappearance of her husband.

On 2 November 2000 the decapitated body of an unknown person was discovered in the vicinity of the town of Tarashcha, in the Kyiv Region. Forensic tests later established that the body was that of Mr Gongadze.

The case is still pending.

Complaints

The applicant complains under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the death of her husband was the result of a forced disappearance and that the State authorities failed to protect his life. She further complained, under Article 2 that the State failed to investigate the case in a coherent and effective manner. She maintains that the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, as well as the incomplete and contradictory information provided during the investigation, forced her to leave the country and caused her suffering, contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention. She also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Procedure

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 September 2002.

Decision of the Court

The Court considered, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaints raised serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It therefore declared the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.