On June 18, the Strasbourg court issued a ruling in the case of Banel vs. Lithuania, identifying violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Lithuania's Ministry of Justice said on Tuesday.
The ECHR awarded the Vilnius resident EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,135 for the pecuniary damage she has sustained.
The court acknowledged that Lithuanian law enforcement officers failed to identify those responsible for Venata Banel's son. On 6 June 2005, her son was playing with other children outside the family's home in the city of Vilnius. Whilst the children were standing on the balcony of an ancillary building containing cellars, the balcony broke off from the building and collapsed. Part of the balcony fell on Banel's son who died at the scene from the injuries he sustained.
The pre-trial investigation was dropped and resumed several times, but in the end it failed to identify those directly responsible for the damage done by the derelict building.
By a ruling of 9 August 2010, Vilnius City First District Court refused to reopen the pre-trial investigation, because a criminal action under Article 229 of the Criminal Code had become time-barred. The pre-trial investigation had been opened on 7 June 2005 and the Code of Criminal Procedure provided a five-year term to prosecute a crime of a negligent or minor premeditated nature. The court therefore did not address the applicant’s complaint that the pre-trial investigation had been flawed.
Banel appealed, but by a final ruling of 15 September 2010 Vilnius Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision to discontinue criminal proceedings under the statute of limitations.
The ECHR ruled that at the time of the accident, there existed a legal framework in Lithuania regarding care and maintenance of buildings and constructions in towns, including derelict buildings on municipal land, but it was not effective.
Moreover, in the opinion of the court, it appears from the prosecutors’ conclusions that Vilnius City Municipality was aware of its duty to take care of derelict buildings. Moreover, it had apparently known of the derelict state of the cellars in question, had taken some steps to avert the danger, but had not taken the necessary measures by the time of the accident.
Taking into account the facts, the Strasbourg court ruled that the State of Lithuania failed to carry out its duty, provided for by the Convention, to take necessary measures to avoid damage caused by derelict buildings and the boy's death.
