CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } Communicated on 17 September 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 298/15 Tineke KOOMEN and Jan KOOMEN against the Netherlands lodged on 17 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident which occurred on 14 May 2011 when the applicants’ 31-year-old son Michael was shot and killed by police officer B. in the course of a scuffle involving a number of men. The applicants’ subsequent complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against officer B. was rejected by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 10 July 2014, which considered that, in the circumstances, a trial court would be unable to reach a guilty verdict in that officer B. had had no other option but to use his weapon. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that B.’s use of his firearm had not been strictly necessary in the circumstances in question. They furthermore complain that the investigation had fallen short of the independence and effectiveness required under Article 2 of the Convention. 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 of this Article?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 174‑182 and §§   298 ‑ 306, ECHR 2011 (extracts) and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 229-239 and §§ 244‑248, ECHR 2016), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? In this context, to what extent is it relevant that the Court of Appeal, in its decision of 10 July 2014, appears to have mainly relied on CCTV-footage and to have made only a very limited and cautious use of the other materials contained in the investigation file? REQUEST OF INFORMATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT 1.     With reference to the observation made by the Court of Appeal in its ruling of 10 July 2014 (under point 7.13) that members of the Amsterdam ‑ Amstelland police force had participated in the investigation, the Government are requested to inform the Court of the context, nature and extent of this participation and to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning this participation which have been added to the investigation file (including full copies of statements taken by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police from the persons involved in the incident and, if any, other witnesses).   2.     Your Government are further requested to inform the Court whether these investigative measures conducted by the Amsterdam-Amstelland police were carried out under the supervision of the National Police Internal Investigations Department and, if not, why not.