CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2021

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s316BF5D8 { width:111.8%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3281263B { height:27.5pt } .sAEEB25D2 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s375B422C { width:39.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37DB148A { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86332EC4 { width:17.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFCD8A20 { width:17.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEB49263B { height:28.2pt } .s906D09D5 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40C12388 { width:39.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4629D69F { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s792BD0C7 { width:17.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7948C2AE { width:17.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1FD4DFD { height:42pt } Published on 10 January 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32707/19 Guido MAGHERINI and Others against Italy lodged on 27 May 2019 communicated on 14 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ relative, Riccardo Magherini, during a police operation and the use of the immobilisation technique known as “ventral decubitus” (or prone) position by law enforcement officers, as well as the ensuing criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular:   Did the applicants’ relative’s death result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in the subparagraphs of Article 2 of the Convention? (see Saoud v.   France , no. 9375/02, §§ 88-90, 9 October 2007)?   Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of the applicants’ relative who, according to the applicants, was in a state of particular vulnerability?   Can it be stated, in the circumstances of the present case, that the respondent State was equipped with the necessary legislative, administrative and regulatory measures defining the limited circumstances in which law-enforcement officials may use force (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v.   Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI, and Tekın and Arslan v. Belgium , no. 37795/13, § 84, 5 September 2017)?   Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to train their law-enforcement officials in such a manner as to ensure their high level of competence in their professional conduct so that no one is subjected to treatment that runs counter to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 108, ECHR 2015, and Tiziana Pennino v.   Italy , no. 21759/15, § 45, 12 October 2017)?   The Government are invited to specify whether there exists, and existed at the time of the impugned events, an established policy, protocol, or practice by reference to which police officers must operate when dealing with individuals in the situation of the applicants’ relative, in particular with regard to the use of restraint and immobilisation techniques, including recourse to the technique known as “ventral decubitus” (or prone) position. In relation to the time of the impugned events, the Government are invited to refer, inter alia, to Circular No. 1168/483-1-1993 of 30 January 2014 and its replacement by Circular No. 1168/483-18-1993 of 19 January 2016.   The Government are also invited to provide detailed information concerning the initial and continuous training of law enforcement officers in dealing with individuals who are in a highly agitated state or otherwise vulnerable, and in particular with regard to the use of restraint and immobilisation techniques, both at the present time and at the time of the impugned events. In this latter connection, they are invited to specify whether or not the law enforcement officers involved in the impugned events had received such training.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life and recalling the Court’s general approach of examining the investigation proceedings as a whole (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 286, 30 March 2016), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicants’ relative been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the police, in breach of the substantive limb of Article   3 of the Convention?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Guido MAGHERINI 1951 Italian Florence 2. Rozangela GALDINO DE LIMA 1979 Brazilian Florence 3. Clementina GRISONI 1948 Italian Florence 4. Ivano GRISONI 1959 Italian Busto Arsizio 5. Ljuba LOMBARDI 1980 Italian Florence 6. Andrea MAGHERINI 1972 Italian Florence 7. Brando Pablo MAGHERINI 2012 Italian Florence 8. Duccio Oliver MAGHERINI 2011 Italian Florence 9. Simona MAGHERINI 1966 Italian Scandicci 10. Stefano MAGHERINI 1970 Italian Ferrara