CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 354 31.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KONTROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kontrová v. Slovakia (application no. 7510/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dana Kontrová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Michalovce (Slovakia). She was married and had two children with her husband: a daughter born in 1997 and a son born in 2001.   On 2 November 2002 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against her husband, accusing him of having assaulted and beaten her with an electric cable. She submitted a medical report indicating that her injuries would prevent her from working for up to seven days. She also stated that there was a long history of physical and psychological abuse by her husband.   Accompanied by her husband, she later tried to withdraw her criminal complaint. On the advice of Police Officer H., 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 a relative of the applicant called the emergency service of the District Police Department to report that the applicant’s husband had a shotgun and was threatening to kill himself and the children. The applicant made a similar phone call later that night. The phone calls were received by Police Officer B., who instructed Police Officer P.Š., to arrange for a police patrol to visit the premises. The patrol found the applicant in the village of Tušická Nová Ves. The applicant’s husband had left the scene prior to their arrival. The policemen took the applicant to her parents’ home and asked her to come to the police station the following morning so that a formal record of the incident could be drawn up.   In the morning of 27 December 2002 the applicant went to Trhovište District Police Station, where she spoke to Police Officer M.Š..   In the morning of 31 December 2002 the applicant and her brother went to the Michalovce District Police Station, where she talked to Police Officer H. She enquired about her criminal complaint of 2 November 2002 and also mentioned the incident of 26 to 27 December 2002.   On 31 December 2002 between 11 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. the applicant’s husband shot dead their two children and himself.   Ultimately the domestic courts found that the tragedy was a direct consequence of the police officers failure to act. On 14 March 2006 police officers B., M.Š and P.Š were convicted of negligent dereliction of their duties. Criminal proceedings against H. were discontinued.   The applicant’s complaints to the constitutional court seeking compensation concerning the non-pecuniary damage suffered, among other things, were unsuccessful.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 February 2004 and declared partly admissible on 13 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the State had failed to protect the life of her two children. She further complained that it had been impossible for her to make a compensation claim concerning the non-pecuniary damage suffered. She relied on Articles 2, 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The Chamber also decided to examine the case under Article 13. Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court observed that, under section 2 (1) (a) and (b) of the Police Corps Act of 1993, it was one of the main tasks of the police to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, life and health. The situation in the applicant’s family was known to the local police department given, among other things, the criminal complaint of 2 November 2002 and the emergency phone calls of the night of 26 to 27 December 2002.   In response to the applicant’s situation, under the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and service regulations, the police were obliged, among other things, 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, as the domestic courts established, the police failed to ensure that those obligations were complied with. On the contrary, one of the officers involved assisted the applicant and her husband in modifying her criminal complaint of 2 November 2002 so that it could be treated as a minor offence calling for no further action. As found by the domestic courts, the direct consequence of those failures was the death of the applicant’s children.   In the light of its conclusions above, and the Slovakian Government’s acknowledgment that the domestic authorities had failed to take appropriate action to protect the lives of the applicant’s children, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 2.   Article 13   The Court found that the applicant should have been able to apply for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by herself and her children in connection with their death, but that she had no such remedy available to her, in violation of Article 13.   Other Articles of the Convention   The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the facts of the case separately under Article 6 and Article 8.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.