CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45657/22 Manuel BALTAZAR VILAS BOAS and Rosa   Maria   PINHEIRO   BALTAZAR VILAS BOAS against Portugal lodged on 16 September 2022 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the circumstances and the subsequent proceedings regarding the drowning of the applicants’ son, which occurred on 7 June 2005, when he was thirteen years old, after he had jumped over the fence of his school and left unattended with three classmates to play by the river Cávado. In 2006 the investigation proceedings were discontinued on the grounds that there was no evidence of any criminal offence being committed. In 2009 the applicants lodged an action with the Braga Administrative Court for the alleged failure of the school State officials to ensure their son’s supervision and to provide them information about his absence from school. The administrative proceedings ended in 2022 by a decision of the Central Administrative Court of the North ruling against the applicants. Relying on Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the authorities had failed to protect the life of their son. They also complain about the excessive length of the administrative proceedings, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of States’ positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, did the domestic authorities fail to take adequate and appropriate steps to protect the applicants’ son’s life (see, Bône v. France (dec.),   no.   69869/01, 1 March 2005; Molie v. Romania (dec.), no.   13754/02, §§ 39-41, 1 September 2009; Fedina v. Ukraine , no.   17185/02, §§ 50-53, 2   September 2010; and Ercankan v. Turkey (dec.), no.   44312/12, §§ 47-48, 15 May 2018)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural aspect of the positive obligation to protect the right to life, did the proceedings carried out in this case by the domestic authorities meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, given the length of the administrative proceedings, was their positive obligation to set up an effective judicial system respected (see, mutatis mutandis , Fernandes de Oliveira v.   Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, §   137, 31 January 2019)?