CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 janvier 2009

.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 } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   008 8.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LEONIDIS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Leonidis v. Greece (application no. 43326/05).   The Court held: unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the shortcomings in an unplanned police intervention in which the applicant’s son died; and, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   2 of the Convention in respect of Greece’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant’s son died.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Grigorios Leonidis, is a Greek national of Russian-Pontic origin who was born in 1952 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece).   The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that his 18-year-old son, Nikolaos Leonidis, was killed by a police officer with excessive use of firepower.   On 25 March 2000 the applicant’s son, out with friends in Thessaloniki, ran away from a plain clothes police officer who chased him as he wanted to carry out an identity check. Upon catching the applicant’s son the police officer managed to immobilise him while pointing his gun towards the sky. At that moment the applicant’s son caused sharp pain to the officer by jabbing him with his elbow, to which the officer reacted by bending down. While he was drawing himself up his revolver went off firing a single shot in Nikolaos Leonidis’ right ear, instantly killing him.   A few hours after the incident, a preliminary inquiry was carried out. The same day, the applicant was informed of his son’s death and an autopsy was performed. The following day the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the police officer for wilful homicide exceeding the limits of self- defence and unauthorised use of weapons.   Following the preliminary inquiry, in June 2003 the case was sent to the competent court for trial. After examining evidence, hearing statements and considering various expertises and reports, the police officer was ultimately acquitted on all counts.   In the meantime, an administrative inquiry into the circumstances of the shooting was launched by the police in order to ascertain, among other things, whether the police officer who had shot the applicant’s son should be disciplined. The investigation was assigned to a different police department; the ensuing report issued in April 2001 found that the death of the applicant’s son was not the result of the police officer’s reckless behaviour. As a result, no disciplinary proceedings were brought against the police officer in question.   In November 2002, while the case was pending before the criminal courts, the applicant brought a civil action against the State seeking compensation for the killing of his son by the police. The Court, finding that the police officer was responsible for the death as he had used his firearm in violation of the applicable law, awarded the applicant 80   000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damages caused by the police officer’s action.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 November 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged that the police officer who had killed his son had resorted to excessive use of fire-arms and that the Greek authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the incident.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Concerning the alleged violation of the right to life of Nikolaos Leonidis   It was undisputed between the parties that the applicant’s son was killed in the course of an unplanned police intervention by an identified police officer. The Court saw no reason to question the facts as established by the Greek courts and accepted that Nikolaos Leonidis had not been killed deliberately.   The Court did not find it necessary to establish whether there was initially a need to pull out a weapon during the chase, since it   could not substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life. However, it considered that the police officer should not have kept his finger on the trigger of the weapon after he had already immobilised the applicant’s son, but should have placed his gun in its holster instead.   The Court also attached particular importance to the findings of the national administrative courts which had concluded that the use of a firearm by the police officer had been unlawful and that he had not acted with due care. In addition, the legislation governing the use of weapons at the time had been obsolete and no clear guidelines had existed about its application.   The Court therefore concluded that the Government had not done all that could be reasonably expected of it to avoid the real and immediate risks in such hot-pursuit police interventions. Accordingly, there had been a violation of the right to life under Article 2.   Concerning the alleged inadequacy of the investigation   The Court noted that three separate sets of proceedings – criminal, administrative and civil - were conducted in order to establish the facts of the case, to identify those responsible and, if appropriate, to secure the punishment of those concerned. Having regard to the actions taken in the course of these proceedings, the Court was satisfied that an effective investigation had been carried out. There had therefore been no violation of Article 2 in respect of the effectiveness of the investigation.     Judge Spielmann expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.