CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 janvier 2009

.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 } .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. 115 January 2009 Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia - 46598/06 Judgment 15.1.2009 [Section I] Article 2 Positive obligations Failure to take all reasonable steps to protect lives of applicants' relatives from a person who had previously been convicted of threatening to kill them: violation   Facts : The applicants are the relatives of M.T. and her infant child, V.T., who were both killed in August 2006 by M. M., the child's father. M.T. and M.M. had lived together in the home of M.T.'s parents until July 2005, when M.M. had moved out after disputes with the members of the household. In January 2006 M.T. had lodged a criminal complaint against M.M. for death threats he had allegedly made. In the ensuing proceedings, the authorities had obtained a psychiatric opinion which stated that M.M. was likely to repeat similar offences in the future and stressed the need for his psychiatric treatment. On 15 March 2006 the Municipal Court had found M.M. guilty of repeatedly threatening to kill himself, M.T. and their child with a bomb. He was sentenced to five months' imprisonment and, as a security measure, was ordered to have compulsory psychiatric treatment during his imprisonment and afterwards as necessary. On 28 April 2006 the second-instance court had reduced that treatment to the duration of his prison sentence. M.M. served his sentence and was released on 3 July 2006. On 15 August 2006 he shot M.T. and V.T. dead, before committing suicide by turning the gun on himself. Law : The findings of the domestic courts and the conclusions of the psychiatric examination undoubtedly showed that the authorities had been aware that the threats made against the lives of M.T. and V.T. were serious and that all reasonable steps should have been taken to protect them. The Court noted several shortcomings in the authorities' conduct. Firstly, no search of M.M.'s premises or vehicle had been carried out during the initial criminal proceedings against him, despite the fact that he had repeatedly threatened to use a bomb. In addition, although the psychiatric report drawn up for the purposes of the criminal proceedings had stressed the need for M.M.'s continued psychiatric treatment, the Government had failed to prove that such treatment was actually and properly administered. The documents submitted showed that his treatment in prison had consisted of conversational sessions with prison staff, none of whom was a psychiatrist. Further, neither the relevant regulations nor the court's judgment ordering compulsory psychiatric treatment had provided sufficient details on how the treatment was to be administered. Indeed, the general rules provided for in the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act did not properly address the issue of the enforcement of obligatory psychiatric treatment as a security measure, thus leaving it completely to the discretion of the prison authorities to decide how to act. In the Court's view, such regulations needed to be sufficient in order to ensure that the purpose of criminal sanctions was properly satisfied. Lastly, M.M. was not examined prior to his release from prison in order to assess whether he still posed a risk to M.T. and V.T. The Court therefore concluded that the relevant domestic authorities had failed to take adequate measures to protect the lives of M.T. and V.T. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 40,000 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