BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia - 74448/12 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 1144 (18 September 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/1144.html Cite as: [2014] ECHR 1144 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 177
September 2014
Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia - 74448/12
Judgment 18.9.2014 [Section I] See: [2014] ECHR 965
Article 2
Positive obligations
Article 2-1
Life
Police failure to take reasonable measures to protect life of lawyer killed by mentally disturbed man: violation
Facts - The applicants were five close relatives of a lawyer who was shot dead in 2002 by A.N., the husband of one of her clients. At the time, A.N. was mentally disturbed and had a history of domestic violence, unlawful possession of firearms and alcohol abuse. On the day before the shootings, A.N.’s wife informed the police that he had threatened to kill her, but they took no action. The following day after attempting to kill his wife, A.N. went to the lawyer’s office and shot her dead. He then committed suicide. Although shortly before the shooting he had been under police control, visibly disturbed and dangerous, the officers in charge had left him without supervision and had only belatedly reported the situation to the medical authorities. Following the shooting, disciplinary proceedings were brought against the police officer on duty on the day of the killing and the commanding officer who had been in charge the previous day. The officers were found guilty of falsifying the reports concerning the measures the police had taken on the morning of the incident and of failing to report their interview with A.N. and his wife the previous day.
Law - Article 2 (substantive aspect): Considering the circumstances in which the deceased had been killed, the Court found that what was at issue in the present case was the respondent State’s obligation to afford general protection to society against potential violent acts of an apparently mentally disturbed person. The risk to life had been real and immediate and the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge of it, as A.N. had appeared mentally disturbed and dangerous, the authorities had considered that further medical supervision was necessary, and A.N. had twice been under immediate police control and supervision on the morning of the incident. In such situations the States’ positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention required the domestic authorities to do all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid such a risk. However, the domestic proceedings had identified several shortcomings in the manner in which the police had dealt with the situation and there had been several other measures the authorities could reasonably have been expected to take. While the Court could not conclude with certainty that matters would have turned out differently if the authorities had acted otherwise, the fact that reasonable measures could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm sufficed to engage the State’s responsibility under Article 2. The failures of the police had not only been a missed opportunity, but, had they not occurred, could have objectively altered the course of events by leading to A.N’s medical supervision and the taking of further necessary action relevant to his apparently disturbed mental state. Therefore, the police’s lack of diligence disclosed a breach of the respondent State’s obligation to take all reasonable measures to safeguard the right to life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 20,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], 37703/97, Information Note 46; Maiorano and Others v. Italy, 28634/06, 15 December 2009, Information Note 125; and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, 46846/08, 17 January 2012, Information Note 148)
