CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 décembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 192 January 2016 Kotilainen and Others v. Finland (communicated) - 62439/12   Article 2 Positive obligations Alleged failure by police to prevent mass shooting by withdrawing firearms licence: communicated The applicants are relatives of the victims of a shooting in a school in Kauhajoki in September 2008, in which ten people were killed before the gunman, who held a firearms licence, killed himself. They allege, in particular, that the gunman, who had mental problems, should not have been granted a licence to carry a gun. Following the shooting, the public prosecutor, joined by the applicants, pressed charges against the police officer responsible for granting the firearms licence alleging negligent breach of duty and grossly negligent homicide. The trial court found that the licence had been issued in accordance with the legal requirements and that, although the police officer had become aware, a few days before the shooting, of material the gunman had published on the Internet, he had called him in for questioning the same day and, not finding any clear reason to withdraw the licence, had issued a verbal warning. That decision had been within the officer’s margin of appreciation and there was no evidence of any negligence. On appeal, the appeal court found the officer guilty of negligent breach of his official duties as he should have temporarily confiscated the gun, but not guilty of grossly negligent homicide, as he had not had any concrete grounds to suspect that the perpetrator would commit the killings. It further found that no State liability for damage suffered by the applicants could be established on the basis of any acts or omissions of the police officer or of any other civil servants or State organs. In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained in particular of the failure of the police to take measures to prevent the shooting. Communicated under Article   2 of the Convention.   © 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