CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 30 August 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45036/18 M.Ö. against the Netherlands lodged on 14 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident which occurred on 31 May 2017 when two police officers followed a car that had been reported stolen and that was being driven by the applicant. When that car came to a stop and the police officers wanted to apprehend the applicant, the latter reversed into the police car before driving off. The police officers fired eight shots at the car; one of the bullets narrowly missed the applicant’s head. The applicant’s subsequent complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers was rejected by the Court of Appeal of The Hague on 15 March 2018, which considered that although the police officers could not be said to have acted in legitimate self-defence and the use of force by them had been unlawful, it was not opportune to prosecute the officers. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, for instance, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 52 and 55, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI, and Haász and Szabó v. Hungary , nos. 11327/14 and 11613/14, §§ 45-48, 13 October 2015), was the applicant’s right to life within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention endangered by the actions of the police officers?   2.     If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, has the applicant’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated? In that connection, does the finding of the Court of Appeal of The Hague that the police officers’ use of force was unlawful amount to an acknowledgment in substance that the use of that force was in breach of Article 2? If it does not, was it absolutely necessary for the purposes of Article 2 § 2 to resort to a use of force which threatened the applicant’s life (see, mutatis mutandis, Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey , no.   24827/05, § 38, 23 April 2013)?   3.     If there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention and in the light of the Court’s case-law (see, amongst other authorities, Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 239, 30 March 2016, and Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 306, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), was the applicant afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for that violation in the circumstances of the present case, in the absence of criminal proceedings having been instituted against the police officers?   4.     Have any disciplinary investigation or proceedings been conducted against the two police officers involved?