CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 29 August 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11327/14 Éva HAÁSZ against Hungary lodged on 29 January 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Éva Haász, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Siófok. She is represented before the Court by Mr   G.   Szabó, a lawyer practising in Göd. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 6 August 2012 the applicant and her friend (Ms Sz.; her related application, under no. 11613/14, is pending before the Court) were on an excursion to Lake Balaton. In the evening, they decided not to return home, but to spend the night in their car, parked in a car park next to a pizzeria in Zánka. Waking at dawn, they noticed that a car was passing by theirs, coming back and forth several times. They found this frightening and drove on to the village of Tagyon. At about 3.30 a.m., a black Ford Mondeo approached their vehicle; a person dressed in black got out of it and, without warning or explanation, attempted to open the car door, holding an object looking like a handgun. Another man got out of the Ford and directed a torch towards the inside of the applicant’s car. The men were a police officer and a volunteer law enforcer. The applicant and her friend found this frightening and drove away, forcing the garden gate of the adjacent property and driving into that yard. The applicant was the driver. Inside the garden, the dimensions of which were 67 x 17.6 metres, she turned the car around and drove towards the gate. The applicant submits that given the size of the garden, the men must have realised that they were driving towards the gate. When the car was on its way out, one of the men, police officer K., fired a warning shot. When the car passed officer K., he shot two more times at the car. One shot hit the back of the car on the left side; the other shot went through the windscreen, missed the head of the applicant’s friend by 5 ‑ 10   centimetres and then went through the window of the right front door. At that moment, the applicant’s car hit the Ford parked right outside the gate and stopped. Officer K. rushed there and knocked on the car window, shouting: “Police, step outside the vehicle! Open the door!” The applicant opened the car door, and Officer K. put his gun away, presenting his police ID. The other man, Mr S., approached the other side of the car, broke the window previously hit by the bullet and forced Ms Sz. out of the car. He drew a handgun on her, twisted her arm and banged her against the car. The applicant, frightened, burst out crying. Subsequently, it became clear that the incident was based on a misunderstanding, since the applicant and her friend had only been frightened but had had no intention whatsoever of countering a police measure. However, since the two men had worn plain clothes and neither they nor their car had had any police signs, the applicant and her friend had not initially realised that officer K. was a policeman and his associate a volunteer law enforcer. Since the incident, the applicant has been suffering from psychological troubles. The Veszprém County Investigating Prosecutor’s Office initiated proceedings against officer K. on charges of attempted manslaughter. The applicant and her friend were questioned several times as witnesses and a confrontation took place. Other witnesses were also heard and the opinion of a forensic firearms expert was obtained. Simultaneously, officer K.’s superior, the Head of Balatonfüred Police Department, investigated the use of a firearm by officer K. He found that the officer had had no intention to endanger human life; his purpose had been to halt the applicant’s car, which had represented a danger for him and his associate; and the officer’s action, although not criminal, had been unprofessional. On 3 July 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the investigation. It found that Officer K.’s use of firearms was lawful in the face of the danger represented by the conduct of the applicant and her friend, namely driving in the direction of officer K.’s associate. The authorities accepted officer K.’s statements, according to which he had given a warning before shooting, had first shot perceiving danger to the life of his associate and his second shot had been accidental. The applicant submits that expert evidence contradicted these statements but the authorities ignored this. The applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint against the discontinuation. On 22 July 2013 the Veszprém County Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint, holding that the danger caused by the applicant and Ms Sz. had directly concerned the life and limb of officer K.’s associate. The risk that the associate might be hit by their car had justified the shots by officer K. even if they had not been preceded by the requisite procedure. On 14 October 2013 the Head of Balatonfüred Police Department dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the action of Officer K. The applicant’s appeal was to no avail. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the action of Officer K. represented lethal danger for her, without any real necessity. Moreover, relying on Article 13 read in conjunction with Article   2, she submits that the investigation was inadequate, in particular in that the issue of preliminary warnings was not explored, and officer K.’s statement about the first shot having been fired under the impression that his associate’s life was in danger and the second shot having been fired by accident was accepted, despite evidence to the contrary. Moreover, she submits that the unjustified police action amounted to an unjustified interference with her right to personal security, in breach of Article 5, and that the conduct of Officer K. and his associate during and after the incident was degrading, in breach of Article 3. Furthermore, in her submissions, the lasting psychological consequences of the event represent a breach of Article 8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the incident which put the applicant’s life at risk? In particular, has it been sufficiently explored if there had been warnings before the shooting, if Officer K. could perceive mortal danger for his associate, and if his second shot had been made by accident?