Background
On 22 November 2016, a ten-year-old boy was struck and killed by a train at an informal crossing point near Irpin railway station in Kyiv Region, Ukraine. The crossing had been used by local residents for years as a shortcut between parts of the town bisected by the railway line. The railway line at that location was completely unfenced and unmonitored. Although an authorized underground pedestrian crossing existed 300 metres away, residents routinely used the informal route, and the school the applicants’ son attended was located near the dangerous crossing point.
The only safety measures in place were two inadequate warning signs taped to poles in the middle of the tracks, printed on white A4 paper with small black letters stating that walking on the railway was forbidden with a modest fine. Irpin railway station was among Ukraine’s 28 most dangerous railway stations, with a documented history of accidents. The applicants’ evidence showed that a paved track and striped pedestrian zone had existed marking the informal crossing route, which were removed only after the fatal accident. Physical barriers were subsequently erected—a concrete fence by local businessmen at the end of 2016, and a 200-metre metal fence installed by Ukrainian Railways in 2018.
The criminal investigation opened immediately after the death quickly stalled. Although initial investigative steps were taken, including examination of the scene and questioning of two eyewitnesses, the investigation was marked by systematic failures: investigating authorities ignored repeated instructions from superiors to pursue essential investigative steps, failed to preserve evidence that deteriorated or was lost, and refused to grant the father formal victim status despite a court order. As of January 2021—over four years later—the investigation remained pending without significant progress.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found two violations of Article 2 of the Convention (right to life). First, the state breached its substantive positive obligation to prevent the death by failing to take timely protective measures. Although regulations governing railway safety existed, the local authorities knew or ought to have known of the specific, real, and immediate risk posed by the unprotected, frequently-used crossing point near a school. The Court found it established that the crossing had been used by local residents for many years and that the authorities’ awareness of this risk was confirmed by their actions both before and after the death. The adequacy of passive warning signs and educational awareness campaigns was demonstrably insufficient to address the grave practical risk. Critically, the Court found that erecting physical barriers—the most appropriate and available measure—fell entirely within the local authorities’ budgetary resources and did not impose an excessive burden. The fatal deficiency was timing: barriers were installed only after the death. This measure could have effectively prevented the tragedy without diverting state resources excessively.
Second, the state violated its procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation. The Court found the domestic investigation so “flagrantly deficient” that it raised issues of either “manifest incompetence by the authorities or sabotage of the investigative work.” The investigation was marred by numerous substantial shortcomings: failure to collect essential evidence (medical examinations, technical examinations of the train, thorough questioning of all witnesses); progressive deterioration or loss of critical evidence; improper safeguarding of the applicants’ victim status despite a court order; failure to pursue the parallel investigation into railway station officials’ potential negligence despite a court mandate; and inadequate disciplinary consequences for the investigating authorities. The internal railway inquiry was not independent and merely accepted the train crew’s explanations without independent verification or medical examination of their fitness. The investigative failures meant that after years of proceedings, the circumstances of the death and any systemic failures could not be properly established, undermining accountability.
Key Takeaways
- States must take timely, practical protective measures—not merely regulatory or educational ones—when authorities know or should know of specific, real, and immediate risks to life from dangerous infrastructure or activities they control or authorize.
- When a measure has been demonstrably effective after the fact (as the physical barriers were in Irpin), delay in implementing it constitutes a breach, even if authorities argue the risk was unpredictable—the predictability of individual human conduct does not eliminate state responsibility for systematic risks.
- Investigations into deaths involving state-controlled dangerous activities (such as railways) must meet exacting procedural standards: thorough evidence collection, prompt action, proper victim participation, independence, and consequential accountability—weak or symbolic discipline for investigative failures violates the procedural requirement of Article 2.
- States have heightened responsibility to protect vulnerable groups, such as children, from known environmental hazards, particularly where hazardous activities occur near schools.
Why It Matters
This judgment establishes clear state liability for preventable deaths at unprotected infrastructure, requiring member states to move beyond warnings and education to implement physical safeguards when authorities have actual or constructive knowledge of specific risks. Railway operators and local authorities across Europe must reassess informal crossing points, fence dangerous sections, and prioritize protective infrastructure near schools. The decision rejects the argument that unpredictable human behavior absolves the state of responsibility for failing to eliminate unnecessary hazards within its control.
The procedural holding is equally significant for access to justice: investigations into infrastructure-related deaths must be genuinely effective, not merely prompt or formally initiated. Families of deceased persons have enforceable rights to victim status, evidence preservation, and thorough questioning of all relevant actors. The Court’s finding that inadequate disciplinary measures constituted part of the Article 2 breach means that European states must ensure that investigative failures carry real consequences, preventing impunity for police and official misconduct that undermines the right to life.