CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 janvier 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 148 January 2012 Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine - 36146/05 Judgment 12.1.2012 [Section V] Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Life Failure adequately to vet police officer before issuing him with a firearm he subsequently used in fatal shooting: violation   Facts – The applicants’ relatives were shot and killed when an off-duty police officer became involved in a quarrel and opened fire with his service weapon, which he apparently carried with him at all times. The officer had a history of alcohol abuse, indiscipline and violence. Law – Article 2: The case was examined under the State’s positive obligations to protect life as the police officer was off duty at the time of the shooting and had not been involved in a planned police operation or a spontaneous chase. The national authorities had acknowledged on several occasions that the officer’s superiors had failed to appropriately assess his personality and had allowed him to carry a weapon, despite previous troubling incidents. Moreover, the national law expressly forbade issuing guns to police officers who did not have appropriate facilities for safe storage, and no checks had ever been carried out to see where the officer stored his gun at home. It was possible that it was a lack of safe storage that had led to his carrying the gun with him at all times, even when off duty. The Court reiterated that the States were expected to set high professional standards within their law-enforcement systems and ensure that persons serving in those systems met the requisite criteria. In particular, when equipping police forces with firearms, not only had the necessary technical training to be given but the selection of agents allowed to carry firearms had also to be subject to particular scrutiny. There had been a dual failing in the instant case: the officer had been issued with the gun in breach of the domestic regulations (in the absence of a check concerning storage), and his personality had not been correctly assessed in the light of his history of disciplinary offences. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 12,000 each to the four surviving applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes