CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57507/19 Željko SVRTAN and Biljana SVRTAN against Croatia lodged on 24 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ 12 year-old son who was shot by a private party with a history of alcohol abuse, violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms. In the period preceding the shooting, different persons informed the police that the perpetrator, S.K., was making threats using firearms. The police searched S.K.’s house and seized a pistol. Shortly afterwards S.K. shot his ex-wife’s brother from an automatic gun. One of the bullets hit the applicants’ son who was at that moment passing by on his bicycle and he died on the spot. In the ensuing criminal and civil proceedings, S.K. submitted that the police search of his house had been superficial and that they had failed to find the automatic gun which he had kept in a rolled carpet. S.K. was convicted for the death of the applicants’ son and ordered to pay damages to them. The applicants also lodged a civil action against the State, seeking damages for the authorities’ failure to protect their son’s right to life. The first-instance court granted their claim finding that there had been serious failures on the part of the police when searching S.K.’s house. The second ‑ instance court reversed that judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim finding that there was no causal link between the work of the police officers and the death of the applicants’ son. The applicants complain, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that the death of their son was caused by a failure on the part of the domestic authorities to prevent violent acts of S.K. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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 domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to afford general protection to society against potential violent acts of an apparently dangerous individual, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no.   37703/97, § 69, ECHR 2002 ‑ VIII; Maiorano and Others v. Italy , no.   28634/06, § 111, 15 December 2009, and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia , no. 74448/12, § 121, 18 September 2014)?