CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2024

.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 4 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36957/22 W.N.J.C. against the Netherlands lodged on 28 July 2022 communicated on 15 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the discontinuation of criminal proceedings at the appeal stage at the request of the Public Prosecution Service. The applicant was a victim of a highly violent assault by a group of persons in a public place. After a conviction of those persons for attempted manslaughter by the first instance court, the public prosecutor in the appeal proceedings requested to be declared inadmissible as he could no longer vouch for the fairness of the proceedings against the convicted persons because of undisclosed failings in the investigation, which compromised the integrity of the evidence. No further reasons could be given in order to protect legitimate, unnamed interests. Before the appellate court, the public prosecutor acknowledged that the applicant, being the victim of a violent crime, had suffered damage due to this situation and offered to award compensation. The Court of Appeal thereafter declared the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution of the suspects and quashed the initial conviction. The applicant received compensation from the Public Prosecution Service for the damage suffered by him. A renewed request to prosecute, filed by the applicant, was rejected as the abovementioned, undisclosed failings in the investigation were irreparable. The applicant’s complaint procedure regarding this decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The applicant complains about the violation of the authorities’ positive obligation derived from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation and the lack of an effective remedy to raise this complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that flaws in the criminal investigation have been acknowledged and compensation has been awarded, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR   2006-V; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 115 and 116, ECHR 2010; Bivolaru v. Romania (no. 2) , no. 66580/12, § 170, 2 October 2018 and Chennouf and Others v. France (dec.), no. 4704/19, 20   June 2023, § 39)?   2.     If so, and having regard to the procedural protection under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention, has the State complied with its obligation to carry out an effective investigation (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v.   Turkey   [GC], no. 24014/05, § 171, 14 April 2015 and Öneryıldız v.   Turkey   [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII)?