CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 20 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA513A796 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:16pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9592D8C2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4E036C5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA0993303 { width:139.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KOOMEN v. THE NETHERLANDS (Application no. 298/15)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 (substantive and procedural) • Death of the applicants’ son as a result of a fatal gunshot wound inflicted in the course of a scuffle between a number of men and a police officer • In specific case-circumstances, use of lethal force by police officer “absolutely necessary in defence of any person from unlawful violence” • Effective and impartial investigation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 20 May 2025   FINAL   20/08/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Koomen v. the Netherlands, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Faris Vehabović,   Tim Eicke,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   298/15) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two   Dutch nationals, Ms Tineke Koomen and Mr Jan Koomen (“the applicants”), on 17   December 2014; the decision to give notice to the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the right to life; the President’s decision to treat some of the documents in the case file as confidential under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 29 April 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the death of the applicants’ son as a result of a fatal gunshot wound inflicted in the course of a scuffle between a number of men and a police officer. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the officer’s use of his firearm had not been absolutely necessary and that the authorities had failed to conduct an independent and effective investigation into the incident. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1950 and live in Amsterdam. They are the parents of Michael Koomen, who was born on 20 July 1979 and died on 14   May 2011 of a gunshot wound. The applicants were represented by Mr   W.H. Jebbink, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. 3.     The Government were represented by their Deputy Agent at the time, Ms   K.   Adhin, and subsequently by their Agent, Ms B. Koopman, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The circumstances surrounding Michael Koomen’s death 5.     On the evening of 14 May 2011 members of an amateur soccer team were celebrating winning the league in which the team competed. The members of the team included Michael Koomen, his brother (N.K.), J.K. and D.M. The team and some of their friends – some twenty persons altogether – took a canal boat trip from a nearby village to central Amsterdam. From the mooring place they moved in smaller groups into the city centre. 6.     A senior police officer, B. – a dog handler who was passing in his police van at around 10 p.m. – decided to arrest N.K. and J.K. for being publicly intoxicated. He radioed the control centre for assistance because his van was unsuitable for transporting people. He was told that police reinforcements were on their way. 7.     Initially, the arrest proceeded peacefully. Officer B. handcuffed N.K. and J.K. to each other. Various members of the group – including Michael Koomen – came and stood around the police van. 8.     The atmosphere changed when D.M. and others began behaving in a manner that Officer   B. perceived as threatening. Officer   B. decided to push N.K. and J.K. into his van, and he retrieved his long truncheon ( wapenstok ) with a view to defending himself. A scuffle broke out, during which Officer   B. was pushed back into the van, ending up on top of – or wedged in between – N.K. and J.K. Meanwhile, Michael Koomen was trying to calm the situation. 9 .     In the ensuing scuffle and while lying in the van, Officer B. drew his service pistol and fired four shots through the open side door. The first shot hit Michael Koomen in the neck, which proved fatal. The second shot did not hit anyone. The third shot hit N.K.’s thigh. The fourth shot hit   D.M.’s abdomen. Officer   B. later stated that at the time that he had fired the shots, he had feared for his life (see paragraphs   16 and 25 below). Police reinforcements arrived some fifteen to twenty seconds after the last shot was fired. 10 .     The incident was captured on video by two CCTV cameras mounted outside a nearby shop. Those recordings formed part of the evidence examined during the domestic proceedings (see paragraphs 26 and 55-56 below) and were submitted by the Government to the Court. The investigations into the incident 11 .     Two separate investigations were conducted regarding the incident on the evening of 14 May 2011. 12.     The use of force by Officer   B. against Michael Koomen, N.K. and D.M. was investigated by the National Criminal Investigations Department ( rijksrecherche – “the NCID”) under the supervision of L., a prosecutor with the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office ( arrondissementsparket ) of Amsterdam (see paragraphs 14 ‑ 19 below). 13 .     In parallel with that investigation, a criminal investigation was carried out into possible criminal offences committed by members of the group (see   paragraphs 20-33 below). That investigation was carried out by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force, under the supervision of W., a prosecutor with the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office of Amsterdam. Investigation by the NCID into the use of lethal force by Officer B. Forensic investigation 14 .     On 15 May 2011, a few hours after the shooting incident, the forensic unit of the Utrecht regional police force (that is, a police force from a region other than the one in which the incident had occurred) – acting under the supervision of the NCID and in accordance with the Instruction for investigating the use of force by a (police) officer ( Aanwijzing handelwijze bij geweldsaanwending (politie)ambtenaar ; see paragraph 65 below) – carried out a forensic investigation of the scene of the incident and secured Michael Koomen’s body and Officer B.’s uniform and firearm for examination. 15 .     At the request of prosecutor L., the forensic unit also digitally enhanced the quality of the CCTV footage (see paragraph   10 above) which had meanwhile been seized and secured by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police. The official record of the forensic investigation (including its findings) and the enhanced CCTV footage was submitted to the NCID on 23   June 2011. Also on 15 May 2011 a coroner inspected Michael Koomen’s body. The following day an anatomical pathologist at the Netherlands Forensic Institute conducted an autopsy on his body. Their findings were forwarded to the NCID. Interview with Officer B. 16 .     At 1 p.m. on 15 May 2011 two NCID officers interviewed Officer   B. as a witness (but under caution and in the presence of a lawyer). His statement can be summarised as follows. While driving his police van, Officer B. noticed a group of young men ‑ two of whom appeared to be intoxicated and were hindering traffic (Officer   B. later identified them as N.K. and J.K.). He placed the two under arrest and handcuffed them together. A third young man arrived on the scene (Officer   B. later identified him as Michael Koomen) and adopted a conciliatory attitude, asking Officer B. to release the two. The situation was not threatening at that point. Since it was impossible to transport the arrested persons in his police van, Officer B. radioed for assistance. The remainder of the group (Officer B. later identified one of them as D.M.) approached and started to behave aggressively. Michael Koomen tried to calm them down, but to no avail. Upon being physically assaulted by D.M., Officer B. opened the side door of his police van and pushed N.K. and J.K. inside. He took his truncheon from inside the van and used it to fend off the group. He was then pushed into the van and fell on top of the arrested men. N.K. then put his arm around Officer B.’s neck and tried to pull him back and strangle him at the same time as the rest of the group was trying to pull him out of the van by his legs. In the meantime, Officer B. had lost his truncheon and the earpiece that was connected to his handheld radio and could therefore no longer hear radio traffic. Fearing for his life, Officer   B. decided to use his firearm as a last resort. The first shot was intended as a warning shot, aimed upwards into the air across the edge of the doorway of the van ( langs de rand van de opening van de bus omhoog naar buiten gericht ). The group did not react, and N.K. continued to strangle him. The second shot, aimed at someone’s legs, provoked no reaction either. When N.K. tried to take the firearm from him, Officer B. fired his third shot into one of his legs. Officer B. then fired a fourth shot at someone’s leg, prompting the group to retreat, except for Michael Koomen, who was lying motionless on his back. Officer B. expressed the view that the members of the group had appeared to be out for blood ( bloed wilden zien ) and that they would have kicked him to death if they had managed to drag him out of the van. 17 .     The official record of Officer B.’s statement was accompanied by a medical statement dated 15 May 2011 (according to which Officer B. had no permanent or visible injuries apart from a graze on his leg that was about 10   cm long) and documentary proof of the fact that he had been trained and authorised to use his firearm (see paragraph 63 below). Interviews with witnesses 18 .     Between 15 May and 28 June 2011, NCID officers interviewed twelve members of the group as witnesses, including: N.K. (interviewed on 17 May 2011 – he was unable to recollect much of what had happened); J.K. (interviewed on 18 May 2011 – he described the manner of his arrest and the ensuing scuffle and shooting); and D.M. (interviewed on 28 June 2011 – he described the scuffle between him and Officer B.). On-scene reconstruction 19 .     On the evening of 30 January 2012, the NCID staged an onsite reconstruction of the shooting incident, which was recorded and stored on DVDs. The reconstruction had been ordered by the investigating judge at the Amsterdam Regional Court – at prosecutor L.’s request – because the situation inside the police van when the shots were fired remained unclear, despite the available CCTV footage. Officer B., J.K., D.M. and N.K. took part in the reconstruction. The investigating judge oversaw the reconstruction process. Immediately following the reconstruction Officer B., under caution and in the presence of a lawyer, was questioned by the investigating judge. Investigation conducted by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police into criminal offences possibly committed by the members of the group Arrest and questioning of members of the group as suspects 20 .     On 14 and 15 May 2011, the Amsterdam-Amstelland police arrested nine members of the group, including N.K., J.K. and D.M., on suspicion of involvement in the use of violence against Officer B. 21 .     On 15 May 2011 the Amsterdam-Amstelland police questioned as suspects five members of the group (C.T., M.H., L.B., S.P. and P.K.), who stated that they had not witnessed anything of the incident or had arrived at the scene only after the first shot. On the same day, a sixth suspect (Y.S.) gave a statement, which included the following: “The officer got out [of the van] and told [N.K. and D.M.] that they had been arrested. The officer appeared tense and authoritarian to me ... After this, it quickly turned into a chaotic situation, which I did not perceive to be threatening to [Officer B.] ... at that moment. ... I saw [Officer   B.], [J.K.], [N.K.] and Michael Koomen standing near the van. Someone ... ran very hard towards [Officer B.] ... . At that moment, there was a sudden pulling back and forth, ... probably to get [N.K. and D.M.] into the van. I moved in that direction, [in order] to pull Michael Koomen away from there. I thought, ‘this is not going well’; when I got closer, I heard a shot ...” 22 .     On 16 May 2011 the Amsterdam-Amstelland police questioned J.K. as a suspect, but he refused to give a statement. 23 .     On 17 May 2011 prosecutor L. instructed the NCID to add the above ‑ mentioned statements to the NCID investigation case file, as they could possibly be relevant to that investigation. 24 .     On 18 May and 24 May 2011, respectively, the Amsterdam ‑ Amstelland police questioned N.K. and J.K. as suspects. The official records of these interviews were not added to the NCID investigation case file. Interviews with Officer B. 25 .     On 18 May 2011 Officer B. was interviewed as person reporting a crime ( verhoor aangever ) by two officers of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police. Officer   B. reiterated and referred to his statement of 15   May 2011 to the NCID (see paragraph   16 above) and described the impact that the incident had had – and continued to have – on him. 26 .     On 4 July 2011 Officer B. was again interviewed by a police officer of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police. His lawyer was present during the interview. After being shown and asked to comment on the CCTV footage, Officer B. stated, inter alia , that he remembered certain events differently from how they appeared in the footage. 27 .     The official records of the above-mentioned interviews were not added to the NCID investigation case file. Interviews with other witnesses 28 .     On 17 and 26 May 2011, respectively, two other witnesses (a   passer ‑ by and a friend of the soccer team) were interviewed by the Amsterdam ‑ Amstelland police. Those witness statements were added to the NCID investigation case file. 29.     The statement of the passer-by (W.H.) included the following: “I saw a policeman ... put [two men] against the van ..., as if they were under arrest. At the same time ... he was being attacked by five or six guys. ... The officer then hit a guy ... . This guy was then about to go on the attack but was stopped by ... another guy. ... The situation looked threatening at that point ... . I saw more people running towards the police van. Then I saw a hubcap flying through the air. This was picked up by the guy who had received a blow to the head. Then these guys returned to the confrontation ... . I did not actually see the officer being punched and/or kicked. I saw, so to say, the beginning of the skirmish and then walked on ... . [The whole incident] gave me the impression that those guys were at least going to make sure their friends were not going to be taken by the police.” 30 .     The statement of the friend of the soccer team (S.B.) included the following: “While I was walking (towards the police van) ... Michael Koomen walked by me because [N.K.] was there talking to a police officer. At that moment, I saw that the conversation was not going at all too well. Contact was made with the officer and the officer made contact with [N.K.]. I saw Michael Koomen approaching at that moment ... . At that moment, I saw Michael falling down and I went straight to him. ... At that point I fell on my knees; then another shot was fired and I jumped away. ... You ask if I saw [them] fighting near the van. Yes, the officer got into a scuffle with [N.K.]. That scuffle actually happened because [D.M.] kicked that officer – and because [D.M.] had kicked that officer, for that officer everyone who was standing nearby was just being annoying [ vervelend ] and [they] had to stay away from him, and of course he was already dealing with [N.K.]. ... But I did see clearly that [D.M.] was kicking that man. Eventually, I was able to see from my position (near the front of the van) ... that [N.K.] had fallen into that van. What I think and what I saw is that [D.M.] was kicking and that man – together with [N.K.] – lost his balance ... . I clearly saw that [N.K.] at one point wanted to protect that officer. ... from being kicked by [D.M.] ... Whatever happened – and that’s not to be condoned and it all got out of hand – that kicking went too far ...” Criminal proceedings against N.K. and D.M. 31 .     On 11 November 2011 the Amsterdam Regional Court convicted N.K. of committing a violent offence ( openlijke geweldpleging in vereniging ) against a person in a public place and in concert ( openlijke geweldpleging in vereniging ), which had consisted of repeatedly and forcefully beating and kicking Officer B.’s body, forcefully putting an arm around his neck and holding it, and pulling him backwards. The court held that the remaining charges – including hitting Officer B. in the head or face with the championship trophy and forcefully pressing down on his neck or throat – could not be proved. 32.     In setting a sentence of thirteen days’ imprisonment, the court attached considerable importance to the fact that N.K. himself had been gravely affected by the consequences of the violence against Officer B.: not only had he been hit in the leg by a bullet, but, above all, he had lost his brother. 33 .     Also on 11 November 2011 the Amsterdam Regional Court convicted D.M. of committing an act of violent offence against a person in a public place and in concert ( openlijke geweldpleging in vereniging ) and of possession of 1.55   grams of the drug MDMA. The court held that the remaining charges could not be proved. In setting a sentence of forty-eight days’ imprisonment, the court took into account the consequences of the gunshots. Proceedings brought by the applicants Preliminary developments 34.     On 20 July 2011 the applicants lodged a request with the Chief Public Prosecutor ( hoofdofficier van justitie ) of Amsterdam for Officer   B. to be prosecuted for the murder or manslaughter of Michael Koomen. 35.     On 2 September 2011 the applicants were informed that prosecutor L. was in charge of the investigation into Officer   B.’s conduct. 36.     On 30 December 2011 the applicants complained to the Chief Public Prosecutor that several requests that they had lodged with L. for them to be kept informed of the progress of the investigation had been ignored. 37.     On 21 March 2012 the applicants wrote to L. that they had learned that he had worked as a police officer with the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force for approximately twenty years before joining the Public Prosecution Service. They asked him to state the nature of his acquaintance with Officer   B., who at the time of his service with the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force would have been one of L.’s colleagues. 38 .     On 23 March 2012 L. confirmed that he had been a police officer of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force until the mid-1998. He had, however, been employed for the most part in the central criminal investigation department ( centrale recherche ). He had never been a dog handler himself and he had not known Officer B. personally or professionally prior to the investigation. 39.     On 27 March 2012 the applicants requested the Chief Public Prosecutor to entrust a public prosecutor other than L. with the investigation into Michael Koomen’s death. The applicants expressed a concern that any decision not to prosecute Officer B. would be tainted by bias because of L.’s and Officer B.’s concurrent employment by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force from 1986 until 1998. They also submitted that a lack of communication by prosecutor L. regarding the progress of the investigation played a role in their lodging their request. 40 .     On 29 March 2012 the Chief Public Prosecutor refused the applicants’ request for L. to be replaced. The Chief Public Prosecutor stated that the investigation (including the witness interviews) had been carried out by the NCID, which was the first guarantee of an independent police investigation. The Amsterdam-Amstelland police had thus not been involved in the investigation into Michael Koomen’s death. Furthermore, the forensic investigation of the scene of the incident had been carried out by a unit of the Utrecht police force. Investigations conducted by the NCID (including the one into Michael Koomen’s death) were routinely supervised by a public prosecutor belonging (like L.) to a specialist team ( team specialistische zaken ) of the Amsterdam Public Prosecution Service that did not supervise criminal investigations carried out by district police officers ( politiemensen uit de districten ). This was to ensure that public prosecutors would not supervise NCID investigations against police officers known to them. In addition, L. had indicated that he did not know Officer B. in any way; otherwise he would not have been allowed to supervise the case. The independence of L. in investigating Michael Koomen’s death had accordingly been guaranteed. 41 .     The Chief Public Prosecutor confirmed that both L. and Officer B. had been working with the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force from 1986 until 1998; however, that overlap was deemed irrelevant, given that they had not known each other during that time. What remained then was the mere fact that L. had been a police officer with the Amsterdam-Amstelland police until he had become a public prosecutor some fourteen years ago. The Chief Public Prosecutor considered that this was so long ago that this could not have given rise to any bias, or even any appearance thereof. Since no other relevant facts and circumstances had been advanced by the applicants (and nor did such facts or circumstances otherwise emerge), he refused the applicants’ request. 42 .     For the sake of completeness, the Chief Public Prosecutor added that standard procedure dictated that when a public prosecutor in charge of a case wished to drop or proceed with the prosecution of a police officer, no decision was to be taken before consulting his or her immediate supervisor. The result of such a consultation would be submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor in the form of a draft report. After being approved by the Chief Public Prosecutor, this report ( ambtsbericht ) would be submitted to the Public Prosecution Service’s Advisory Board on the Police Use of Firearms ( Adviescommissie politieel vuurwapengebruik ), which had its seat in ‘s ‑ Hertogenbosch. The Advisory Board would then issue an opinion, which would count heavily ( telt zwaar ) with the Chief Public Prosecutor when the latter ultimately took the decision on whether or not to prosecute the police officer in question. 43 .     On 16 April 2012 the applicants were told that Officer   B. would not be prosecuted. Prosecutor L. confirmed that information in a letter dated 6   July 2012. 44 .     Appended to L.’s letter of 6 July 2012 was a report written by him (dated 25 March 2012), which had been approved by the Chief Public Prosecutor and which had been submitted by the latter to the Advisory Board on the Police Use of Firearms on 27 March 2012. In his report, L. analysed the shooting incident and stated his intention to dismiss the criminal case against Officer   B. The report included the following: “ 1.     Introduction ...[T]he available footage offered no or insufficient insight into the situational circumstances at the time of the incident in the police officer’s van. An attempt was made to [determine] those circumstances through a reconstruction at the [scene of the incident] ... as [accurately] as possible. This too was recorded, which was important in assessing the present case and will be discussed in more detail below. ... 2.     The incident: facts and circumstances ...What [Officer B.] does not mention in his extensive [NCID] statement [see paragraph   16 above] but which emerges conclusively from the footage is that, while he was wielding his truncheon, he was being grabbed by the throat from behind by the right arm of [N.K.], who was handcuffed to [J.K.] and who was at the same time trying to get out of the van, [while Officer B.] was being pulled forward into the van with a twisting motion. During the reconstruction [of] 30 January 2012 ... (see the attached DVD [see paragraph   19 above]), [Officer B.] indicated that ... he was being pushed backwards by the group positioned in front of the police van and that he was being grabbed from behind in a firm stranglehold by one of the suspects in the van. The CCTV footage shows that in all the turmoil [Officer B.] ended up in the van under , rather than on top of , [N.K.], and it seems that [B.] ended up on top of [J.K.]. At that moment, [D.M.] was fully in front of the [open] door ... of the van, still kicking in the direction of [B.]. In his [NCID] interview, [Officer B.] indicated in respect of this moment that (in the turmoil) he had lost his truncheon [and] had fallen backwards on top of a handcuffed man, and that, furthermore – owing to the loss of his earpiece – he had lost all contact with the control centre. At the time, he had found it to be a very threatening situation and he had realised that his life was at risk. In his statement, [Officer B.] indicated that he had felt that [N.K.] ... was trying to strangle him. It can be seen from the CCTV that [N.K.] was standing on the ground with both his legs outside the van at the time, leaning forward slightly on top of [Officer B.] ... . Also, it seems possible to conclude from the CCTV footage that the aforementioned grip of [N.K.] around [B.’s] neck continued until ... the first shot – a period of around nine   seconds. While [Officer B.] is being grabbed by the neck by [N.K.] and he is being forced into his van, [D.M.] can be seen attacking him at least twice with a kicking motion. [D.M.] gradually positions himself right in front of the opening of the sliding door of [B.’s] van – (from the perspective of the footage) to the right of [N.K.]. Diagonally to the left and behind [N.K.], we see that his brother, Michael Koomen – who consistently refrained from behaving violently towards [B.] – grabbed [N.K.] from behind with both arms by his shoulders, apparently in order to prevent or to stop any violent behaviour on the part of [N.K.] towards [B.]. First shot A fraction of a second later, Michael Koomen can be seen to collapse and fall backwards onto the street (dead). ... From the images it can be deduced that [Officer B.], from his precarious position at that moment, was confronted with a very confusing situation: lying backwards in his van; one person (J.K.) under/next to him; a large person hanging over him ([N.K.]), who had grabbed him by the neck and forced him backwards into the van and held him by the neck for a long time (around nine seconds); and in addition, [D.M.] ... kept kicking in [B.’s] direction with full force. It is not entirely clear to what extent [B.’s] legs were also being pulled by [N.K.]; however, that cannot be ruled out. Moreover, [J.K.’s] behaviour at that moment cannot be observed either. ... It can very well be explained that from that position (lying down in the van), [B.] did not see Michael Koomen standing in front of his van, as at that very moment [N.K.] –   who was standing diagonally in front of Michael Koomen – was hovering over [B.], keeping him (as [B.] points out) in a continuous stranglehold. That a stranglehold [was inflicted] is supported by the Regional Court’s (final) verdict in the criminal case against [N.K.], in which it was found proven ... that [he] had been ‘forcefully putting an arm around [B.’s] neck and holding it, and pulling him backwards’ [see paragraph   31 above]. In the reasoning in respect of the sentence, it was noted: ‘Owing to the actions of [N.K. and D.M.], the situation escalated to such an extent that [B.] drew and fired his weapon’. In view of the fact that Michael Koomen was hit in the neck (with the direction of the shot pointing upwards towards the back), it can be concluded that the shot – which [Officer B.] had characterised as a warning shot – was aimed and fired from a lying position upwards. ... The CCTV footage shows that at the time of this first shot, there was a clear space available in the opening of the vehicle’s sliding door ... for a warning shot (see CCTV footage ... at 10:21:38). ... 4.     Assessment of the legal position of the shooter/police officer ... First shot ... In the light of the foregoing, I consider that [Officer B.], by firing the first shot, was not at fault – in the sense of being culpable ... – for the death of Michael   Koomen ... . In my view, there was no disproportion between the nature of the assault and the manner of defending against it ...” 45.     In the letter of 6 July 2012, the applicants were informed that they could lodge a complaint ( beklag ) under Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Wetboek van Strafvordering – see paragraph 71 below) with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof) against the decision that Officer   B. would not be prosecuted. Complaint proceedings before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal 46 .     On 13 July 2012 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal against the decision not to prosecute Officer B. 47 .     The applicants submitted that Officer B. should be prosecuted for the murder or manslaughter of Michael   Koomen. In particular, they argued that parts of his statements had been inconsistent or false and that he had a previous conviction for assaulting an arrested person. 48 .     They also submitted that there had been no independent investigation into Michael Koomen’s death because (i) the investigation had for the most part been carried out by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police force, (ii) it had been supervised by a public prosecutor of the Amsterdam Public Prosecutor’s Office (namely, L.), (iii) L. had himself worked with the Amsterdam ‑ Amstelland police force until 1998 and had thus in fact been a colleague of Officer B., and (iv) the applicants had not been kept sufficiently informed of the progress and outcome of the investigation. The applicants relied on Article 2 of the Convention and the relevant case-law of the Court – including the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Ramsahai and Others v.   the Netherlands ([GC], no. 52391/99, ECHR 2007-II). 49 .     On 4 September 2013 the Chief Public Prosecutor of Amsterdam submitted an official report ( ambtsbericht ) to the Advocate General ( Advocaat-Generaal ) at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, recommending that the applicants’ complaint be dismissed. This report included the following: “The decision not to prosecute [Officer B.] was taken after extensive internal consultations within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Prosecutor [L.] has written an extensive report in which the arguments are presented for the decision not to prosecute [see paragraph 44 above]. ... In my opinion, the [applicants’] complaint does not contain relevant elements which have not been addressed in that report. The complaint furthermore explicitly questions the independence of [L.]. For the sake of clarity: [L.] did not know [Officer B.]; [L.] has never worked with [Officer B.]; and [L.] worked for the Amsterdam Public Prosecutor’s Office department for serious crime and fraud [ afdeling zware criminaliteit/fraude ], and, in that capacity, [L.] had nothing to do with the police department where [Officer B.] was working. The investigation was, moreover, carried out by the NCID, and during the investigation [L.] never talked about the substance of this case with staff of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police, and [he] has never been approached about this case by anyone on that side. And to repeat, the decision in this case was taken not only after extensive internal consultations but also after note was taken of [the opinion of] the experts of the Advisory Board on the Police Use of Firearms. The content of the complaint gives no cause to now reach a decision other than that taken previously. In my view, the complaint should be dismissed.” 50 .     On 9 December 2013 the Advocate General at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal submitted an opinion in which he advised that the applicants’ complaint be dismissed. Referring to the CCTV footage (see paragraph 10 above) and the reports of prosecutor L. and the Chief Public Prosecutor (see paragraphs 44 and 49 above), the opinion included the following: “ Proof of attempted murder or manslaughter ... The crux of the matter ... is whether the accused could successfully plead justification [ rechtvaardigingsgrond ] or an excuse [ schulduitsluitingsgrond ]. .... In his official report, the Chief Public Prosecutor agreed with the opinion of public prosecutor   L. This also seems logical as this decision was reached after extensive internal consultations. ... With regard to [D.M.], I have come to the conclusion that [Officer B.] can successfully plead self-defence [ noodweer ]. In my opinion, the same applies with regard to [N.K.], so that in this case, too, the prosecution was rightly dropped on that ground. The [above ‑ noted conclusion] obviously does not apply in relation to Michael Koomen, because Michael Koomen did not attack [Officer B.]. I entirely agree with public prosecutor [L.], who states that it is extremely sad that Michael Koomen died. He was not violent; on the contrary, he tried to prevent violence and further escalation. This fact is highly pertinent for assessing whether (attempted) murder [or] manslaughter ... could be proved. Michael Koomen did not attack [Officer   B.]. [Officer   B.’s] violence was not directed against him, but against [N.K.] and [D.M.]. It logically follows that [Officer B.] had no intention of taking Michael Koomen’s life or of assaulting him. ... [I]n relation to Michael Koomen, ... the intention required for a conviction is lacking. In addition, I am of the opinion that given the circumstances, [Officer B.] cannot be reproached for having (otherwise) acted so carelessly as to warrant his being criminally reproached [ strafrechtelijk relevant verwijt ] with regard to the fatal injuries inflicted on Michael Koomen by the use of his firearm. ... Whether it is in the public interest [opportuniteit] to prosecute The [above-noted conclusion] does not detract from the fact that the situation was a tragic incident with disastrous consequences. It is extremely regrettable that the only sensible person in the group, Michael Koomen, died. It is terrible for the complainants that they have to face the consequences of the incident time and again for the rest of their life. But this is equally true for [Officer B.], who – regardless of how the matter is categorised legal – killed a human being and seriously injured two others. Within this context, the question arises as to whether it would serve the purpose of determining the truth [ waarheidsvinding ] to bring the case to a criminal court. I consider the outcome of such a criminal case to be highly predictable. Given all the documents in the case file, a criminal court will not be able to reach a guilty verdict after the case is submitted. Therefore, I would not want to bring a criminal case [against Officer B.] against [any of the person] concerned. Accordingly, I agree with prosecutor [L.’s] decision not to prosecute.” 51 .     The Court of Appeal, sitting in chambers, heard the applicants assisted by a lawyer and (separately) Officer B.’s lawyer on 14 January 2014, and Officer B. assisted by his lawyer on 22 April 2014. 52 .     During the hearing the applicants elaborated on their complaint (see paragraphs 46-48 above). On the basis of publicly available court records they also challenged the Chief Public Prosecutor’s claim that prosecutor L. had not had anything to do with the Amsterdam-Amstelland police at the time of the investigation into Michael Koomen’s death (see paragraph 49 above). By way of example, the applicants pointed out that L. had acted as public prosecutor in a criminal case – concerning charges of money laundering and other financial crimes – in respect of which the Amsterdam Regional Court had delivered its judgment on 12   March 2012; in that judgment, the Regional Court had referred to, inter alia , investigative measures carried out by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police in 2010. 53 .     On 5 March 2014, Officer B.’s lawyer informed the Court of Appeal and the applicants’ lawyer that Officer B. had been convicted of assault and fined – not only in 1987 (as had been submitted during the hearing of 14   January 2014 – see paragraph 51 above) – but also in 1996. 54 .     On 10 July 2014 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ complaint of 13 July 2012. 55 .     The Court of Appeal noted at the outset that the file contained the applicants’ complaint, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s official report (see paragraph 49 above), the opinion of the Advocate General (see paragraph 50 above), official records drawn up by the NCID and the police, the CCTV footage (see paragraph 10 above) and the reconstruction videos (see paragraph 19 above). 56 .     As regards the CCTV footage, the court stated the following: “5.     ... The Court of Appeal notes that the recordings of the two security cameras ... provide an almost complete picture of what happened in this case. The Court of Appeal has viewed that footage and has observed – in so far as relevant – the following ... 10:19:41 - [A] police van, recognisable as such, ... stops diagonally opposite the roadway, in front of [N.K.] and [J.K.]. [Officer B.], dressed in police uniform, exits the van and walks in front of the van to [N.K.] and [J.K.]. Two other men are standing nearby. 10:20:05 - [Officer B.] places [N.K.] and [J.K.] next to each other right next to the van, with their faces turned towards the van. The two other men have continued on their way. 10:20:06 - [Officer B.] reaches for his belt with his left hand. [R.A.] approaches the van and talks to [Officer B.]. [Officer B.] places [N.K.] and [J.K.] in handcuffs; with a single set of handcuffs he attaches [N.K.’s] left wrist to [J.K.’s] right wrist. 10:20:35 - Michael Koomen walks to the van. 10:20:42 - [Y.S.] runs [towards] the van and [D.M.] also walks in that direction. [D.M.] holds the championship trophy in his hand. 10:20:50 - A group of five people stands near [Officer B.], who is facing Michael Koomen. [N.K.] and [J.K.] stand facing the van. [R.A.] pushes [Y.S.], [D.M.] and [O.B.] away from [Officer B.]. Michael Koomen stays with [Officer   B.]. 10:20:53 - [D.M.] walks around [R.A.] and walks in the direction of [Officer B.]. When he is close to [Officer B.], he bows his head and brings his head close to [Officer   B.]. [R.A.] grabs [D.M.] and pulls him away from [Officer B.]. 10:21:04 - [D.M.] walks around [R.A.] and walks in the direction of [Officer B.]. When he is close to [Officer B.], [Officer B.] pushes [D.M.] away from him. 10:21:08 - [D.M.] walks up to [Officer B.] and hits him with the championship trophy on the left side of his head. [Officer B.] pushes [D.M.] away; the trophy falls to the ground. 10:21:11 - [D.M.] moves in the direction of [Officer B.]. [R.A.] grabs [D.M.] and pushes him a few metres onto the pavement in front of the van. 10:21:15 - [Officer B.] opens the side door of the police van and pushes N.K. and [J.K.] inside. [R.A.] stops [Y.S.], who is about to run towards [Officer   B.], and pulls Michael Koomen away. Meanwhile, [D.M.] is moving in the direction of [Officer B.]. 10:21:20 - [D.M.] walks in the direction of [Officer B.] and kicks him with an outstretched right leg. As a result, [Officer B.] falls diagonally backwards into the police van. [R.A.] holds onto Michael Koomen. [Y.S.] and [R.M.] stand by and watch. 10:21:22 - [D.M.] kicks with his right leg in the direction of [Officer B.], who is in the van. [Officer B.] kicks out twice with one leg in the direction of [D.M.] but does not touch him. [R.A.], Michael Koomen, [Y.S.] and [R.M.] stand by and watch. 10:21:22 – [N.K.] grabs [Officer B.’s] clothes and pulls him back. [Officer B.] lies on his back in the van. [R.A.] points to [D.M.] and holds onto Michael Koomen. [Y.S.] and [R.M.] stand by and watch. 10:21:23 - [R.A.] grabs [D.M.] and tries to keep him away from [Officer B.]. [D.M.] keeps trying to break free and move in the direction of [Officer B.]. Michael Koomen and [Y.S.] stand by and watch. 10:21:29 - [D.M.] lashes out several times in the direction of [Officer B.]. [Officer   B.] reaches out of the van with his upper body and hits out with a long truncheon in the direction of [D.M.]. [R.A.] holds [D.M.] and tries to pull him away. [D.M.] keeps moving in the direction of [Officer B.]. Michael Koomen grabs [D.M.] while [Officer B.] hits [D.M.] with his truncheon. Michael Koomen pulls [D.M.] backwards. 10:21:30 - [R.A.] is standing next to the police van. Michael Koomen holds onto [D.M.]. [Officer   B.] stands with his back to the van and looks at [D.M.]. [N.K.] leans his upper body out of the police van and wraps his right arm around [Officer B.’s] throat. He pulls [Officer B.] backwards. 10:21:34 - Michael Koomen lets go of [D.M.]. [D.M.] runs in the direction of [Officer B.] and, while jumping up, kicks out with an outstretched right leg in the direction of [Officer B.], who is being held around his throat by [N.K.]. While [N.K.] continues to hold [Officer   B.], [D.M.] makes striking movements in the direction of [Officer B.’s] head. [Officer B.] hits [D.M.] with his truncheon and pushes him away with his hands. [Y.S.], Michael Koomen and [R.A.] stand by and watch. 10:21:35 – [N.K.] stands outside the police van and holds [Officer B.] around his throat. [J.K.] wraps his left arm around the upper body of [Officer B.]. [Officer B.] falls backwards into the van. [D.M.] runs to the van. Michael Koomen runs in [N.K.’s] direction. [R.A.] walks away. 10:21:38 – [N.K.] stands in the doorway of the police van with his back facing the doorway. [Officer B.] is in the van. Michael Koomen stands behind [N.K.] and holds him by his shoulders. [D.M.] kicks out with an outstretched right leg in the direction of [N.K.] and strikes him, causing him to fall i