CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 2016

.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 193 February 2016 Civek v. Turkey - 55354/11 Judgment 23.2.2016 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Authorities’ failure to protect life of domestic-violence victim: violation Facts – The applicants’ mother was a victim of domestic violence. In 2009 she was residing with her three children in a reception centre for battered women. On 15   October 2010, further to her complaint, the applicants’ father was remanded in custody and charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on his wife. On 12   November 2010 the latter withdrew her complaint and he was released. This release was accompanied by a judicial supervision measure requiring him to report to the police or gendarmerie station at 5   p.m. every Tuesday and Friday. He was also ordered to refrain from any violent or threatening behaviour against his wife, and to leave the marital home immediately and stay away for a period of three months. Those measures were accompanied by a warning that he would be arrested and imprisoned if he failed to comply with the obligations imposed by the court. On 23   November and 17   December 2010 the applicants’ mother lodged fresh complaints against her husband for harassment and death threats. The latter was charged with insult, threats and non-compliance with the protective measures ordered. On 26   December 2010 the applicants were heard as witnesses and confirmed their mother’s submissions. On 14   January 2011 the applicants’ mother was murdered in the street by her husband, who stabbed her 22   times. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Law – Article 2: Domestic violence is a phenomenon which may take a variety of forms – including physical attacks, psychological violence and insults – and which is not confined to the present case. It is a widespread problem confronting all member States, and is particularly alarming in contemporary European societies. It does not always come out into the open because it is frequently takes place in the framework of personal relationships or restricted circles. Moreover, it does not exclusively affect women: men too can be victims of domestic violence, as can children, who often suffer such violence directly or indirectly. The Court had regard to the seriousness of this problem in examining the facts of the case. The police were aware of the acts of violence committed by the applicants’ father against his wife. Moreover, they had been informed of the likelihood of the murder by the numerous complaints lodged by the applicants’ mother and the applicants’ witness statements. Consequently, the authorities knew, or ought to have known, that she was likely to suffer a lethal assault. In view of the circumstances, that risk could be considered real and imminent. However, although the authorities did take some action, they failed to adopt sufficiently practical measures to prevent the murder of the applicants’ mother as from 12   November 2010, the date of her husband’s release. The police merely registered a further complaint from the victim without taking any further action against her husband, even though he was already known to the police services. The prosecution at no stage adopted any practical, targeted measures to effectively protect the applicants’ mother, whereas they could legally have arrested her husband for failing to comply with the court orders. The authorities therefore failed to take the steps which they could reasonably have taken in order to prevent the implementation of a definite and imminent threat to the life of the applicant’s mother. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: 50,000 EUR jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © 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