CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2023

.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 } Published on 13 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15983/21 Fehim HANUŠA against the Czech Republic lodged on 17 March 2021 communicated on 24 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application raises the issue of whether the applicant might still claim to be a victim in respect of the injuries suffered during a police intervention aimed at arresting him, namely whether the compensation received by him at the domestic level can be considered sufficient in the light of the Court’s case-law under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. On 9 December 1995 the applicant was victim of a shooting by police officers which caused him life-threatening injuries and had long-lasting consequences, resulting in him being granted an invalidity pension. The investigation into the lawfulness of the police intervention ended by a decision of the police of 27 February 1996 to set the matter aside on the ground that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed, although the intervention was deemed unprofessional. In 1998 the applicant lodged an action for compensation for the health damage, namely for the suffering (CZK 30,000,000) and impairment of his ability to be useful in society (CZK 20,000,000), and for the loss of income (more than CZK 30,000,000 in this respect). The courts considered that the police intervention was inadequate and, thus, unlawful. The compensation of CZK 662,160 (approx. EUR 26,000) for the health damage, granted to him by the first-instance court on the basis of an expert report and in application of the decree no. 440/2001 (instead of the old decree   no. 32/1965, providing for much lower sums, the application of which in the present case had been considered contrary to good morals), was in 2019 lowered to CZK 150,465 (approx. EUR 5,900) by the appellate court applying the decree no. 32/1965. Having not met the required burden of proof, the applicant was not granted any compensation for the loss of income. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26 May 2020. In its decision no. IV. ÚS 2259/20 of 20 October 2020 the Constitutional Court endorsed the conclusions reached by the appellate court and the Supreme Court. It held that while the compensation for the suffering could be determined according to the decree in force at the time of the events, the compensation for the impairment of the ability to be useful in the society should reflect the state of facts at the time of the court’s decision; however, the applicant had contributed to such impairment since, in 2000, he had been convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Can the applicant continue to claim to be victim of a violation of his rights under Article 2 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, did he receive adequate compensation for the health damage suffered as a result of a police intervention, given the amount awarded by the domestic courts (see Kopylov v. Russia , no. 3933/04, 29 July 2010; Shestopalov v. Russia , no.   46248/07, 28   March 2017; and Zličić v. Serbia , nos. 73313/17 and 20143/19, 26 January 2021)? In this respect, could the courts plausibly rely on the argument that the applicant had contributed to the impairment of his ability to be useful in the society because of his later criminal conviction?