CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mai 2007

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 97 May 2007 Kontrová v. Slovakia - 7510/04 Judgment 31.5.2007 [Section IV] Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Life Failure of the police to protect the lives of the applicant's children, eventually killed by their father: violation Facts : In November 2002 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against her husband, accusing him of having assaulted her. She also gave a long account of physical and psychological abuse by her husband. Accompanied by her husband, she later tried to withdraw her criminal complaint. On the advice of a police officer, she consequently modified the complaint such that her husband's alleged actions were treated as a minor offence which called for no further action. During the night of 26 to 27 December 2002 the applicant and her relative called the local police to report that the applicant's husband had a shotgun and was threatening to kill himself and the children. As the husband had left the scene prior to the arrival of the police patrol, the policemen took the applicant to her parents' home and asked her to come to the police station so that a formal record of the incident could be drawn up. On 27 December and 31   December 2002, she went to the local police, enquiring about her criminal complaints. Later, on 31   December 2002 the applicant's husband shot dead their two children and himself. The domestic courts found that the shooting had been a direct consequence of the police officers' failure to act. In 2006 the police officers involved were convicted of negligent dereliction of their duties. The applicant's complaints to the Constitutional Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage were declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. Law : Article   2 – The situation in the applicant's family had been known to the local police given the criminal complaint of November 2002 and the emergency phone calls of December 2002. In response, under the applicable law, the police had been obliged to: register the applicant's criminal complaint; launch a criminal investigation and criminal proceedings against the applicant's husband immediately; keep a proper record of the emergency calls and advise the next shift of the situation; and, take action concerning the allegation that the applicant's husband had a shotgun and had threatened to use it. However, one of the officers involved had even assisted the applicant and her husband in modifying her criminal complaint of November 2002 so that it could be treated as a minor offence calling for no further action. As the domestic courts had established and the Government had acknowledged, the police had failed in its obligations and the direct consequence of those failures had been the death of the applicant's children. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   13 – The applicant should have been able to apply for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but no such remedy was available to her. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41: EUR 25,000 for 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