CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 novembre 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 194 March 2016 Nagmetov v. Russia (referral) - 35589/08 Judgment 5.11.2015 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Effective investigation Article 2-2 Use of force Unlawful killing of applicant’s son by police during demonstration and ineffective investigation: case referred to the Grand Chamber In 2006 the applicant’s son participated in a public gathering alleging corruption by local public officials. The gathering was dispersed by the authorities with the use of firearms and he died of injuries sustained by a tear gas grenade. On the same day a criminal investigation was opened. The investigation was then suspended and reopened several times, until it was ultimately abandoned in 2011. In the Convention proceedings the applicant complained under Article   2 of the Convention that his son had died as a result of excessive use of force by the state and that the investigation into his son’s death was ineffective. In a judgment of 5 November 2015 a Chamber held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   2 both in its substantive and in its procedural aspects. It noted that the Russian Government had acknowledged that the applicant’s son had been unlawfully deprived of his life, as it was against Russian law to fire the tear gas grenade directly at a person. The Chamber of the Court found no reasons to disagree with that submission. Furthermore, the Chamber concluded that the authorities had not exhausted all reasonable and practicable measures which could have helped in identifying the shooter and in establishing the other relevant circumstances of the case. On 14 March 2016 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © 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