CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 2025

.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 } .s2680E62 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 62582/19 Ilaria ESPOSITO against Italy lodged on 25 November 2019 communicated on 7 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident which occurred on 10   June   2016 when the applicant’s brother, M.E., who suffered from a psychiatric disorder and was reportedly in a severely altered state of mind, was fatally shot by the police. When the police officers who had been called to intervene surrounded the street where M.E. was walking, M.E. did not respond to the officers’ attempts to calm him down and approached them with a knife. At that point the police officers shot him twice in the legs. M.E. was heavily wounded and was taken to the hospital, where he died two days later. When he was lying on the ground after having been shot, M.E. was kicked by a police officer. An investigation was initiated ex officio . The criminal proceedings which ensued ended with a discontinuance decision. The preliminary investigations judge considered it plausible that the police officers had used their firearms in legitimate self-defence and concluded that the requirement of necessity had been met. On 15 June 2018 the applicant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the authorities had been aware of M.E.’s mental illness and that no strategies had been pursued other than the use of lethal force. The applicant also complained that M.E. was kicked when he was on the ground. These proceedings also ended with a discontinuance decision. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the lethal force used by the police against her brother had not been absolutely necessary. She further alleges that the operation had not been carried out so as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, any risk to life. She also complains about the absence of an adequate legislative and regulatory framework, in particular in that it did not ensure proper protection of the life of persons with psychiatric disorders. Lastly, the applicant complains of the lack of an effective and independent investigation into M.E.’s death. Under the procedural and substantive limbs of Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that the kick her brother received amounted to treatment contrary to that provision and that the investigation into such treatment had not been effective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the right to life of applicant’s brother, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular:   -   Did the death of the applicant’s brother result from a use of force which was “no more than absolutely necessary” for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article? -   Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of M.E.? Taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, can it be said that the authorities had taken appropriate steps to ensure that any risk to life was minimised? In their reply, the Government are invited to address, amongst other things, the applicant’s statement that the officers had not been equipped with non-lethal weapons. -   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 Giuliani and Gaggio v.   Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 209, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Makaratzis v.   Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-XI)? In their replies, the Government are invited to address the applicant’s submissions to the effect that (i) legal framework regulating the use of force by the police, in particular Articles   52 and 53 of the Italian Criminal Code, is very generic, thus generating uncertainty and (ii) there were no specific provisions regulating the use of force by the police when dealing with mentally disturbed individuals. -   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 Tekın and Arslan v.   Belgium , no. 37795/13, § 95, 5 September 2017 and T.V. v.   Croatia , no.   47909/19, § 50, 11 June 2024)?   2.     Does the applicant have locus standi , for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, to lodge the present application in so far as it concerns an alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see   Karpylenko , cited above, §   106, 11 February 2016 and Boacă and Others v. Romania , no.   40355/11, §   46, 12 January 2016)? In the affirmative, was M.E. subjected to degrading treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the kick he received?   3.     Has the State complied with its procedural obligations under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation concerning the events leading to the death of the applicant’s brother and his alleged ill ‑ treatment? In particular, could the investigation be considered to have met the requirement of independence (see,   Alikaj and Others v. Ital y , no.   47357/08, § 96, 29 March 2011), in particular in view of the fact that it had been carried out by officers belonging to the same police station of those involved in M.E.’s death? Did the authorities take all the reasonable measures available to them to secure evidence concerning the impugned events? INFORMATION SOUGHT The Government are invited to specify whether there existed at the time of the impugned events, an established policy, protocol or practice by reference to which the police officers had to operate when dealing with individuals suffering from mental illness or in an evident state of mental distress, and in particular with regard to the use of force and/or firearms. The Government are further invited to specify whether the police officers had been provided with non-lethal weapons or other self-defence equipment (such as the polycarbonate shield mentioned by the applicant).   The Government are also invited to provide information concerning the initial and continuous training of law enforcement officers in dealing with individuals suffering from mental illness or in an evident state of mental distress, and in particular with regard to the use of force and/or firearms, 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.