CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 2 September 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45067/18 R.B. and N.R. against the Netherlands lodged on 16 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident which occurred on 7 September 2016 when the applicants’ 23-year-old son X, who was autistic and suffering from schizophrenia, was shot and fatally wounded by police. The police had entered X’s apartment at the request of, and together with, inter alia , a psychiatry resident ( arts-assistent psychiatrie ) who was to assess whether X should be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. According to the police officers, X had pulled a knife when they wanted to search him and that was the reason why they had resorted to the use of firearms. The applicants’ subsequent complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers was rejected by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 4 April 2018, which considered that although the use of force had not been in line with the relevant official instruction, it was plausible that the officers had used their firearms in legitimate (self ‑ )defence.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ son’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   In particular, did the applicants’ son’s death result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 (a) of this Article?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?