CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   27 15.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BRANKO TOMAŠIĆ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia (application no. 46598/06).   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 Croatian authorities’ lack of appropriate steps to prevent the deaths of M.T. and V.T..   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 40,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,300 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Branko Tomašić, his wife, Ðurđa Tomašić, and their children, Marko Tomašić, Tomislav Tomašić and Ana Tomašić. They are Croatian nationals who were born in 1956, 1963, 1985, 1995 and 2001 respectively and live in Čakovec (Croatia). The applicants are the relatives of M.T. and her child, V.T., born in March 2005, who were both killed in August 2006 by M. M., V.T.’s father.   M.T. and M.M. lived together in the home of M.T.’s parents until July 2005, when M.M. moved out after disputes with the members of the household.   In January 2006 M.T. lodged a criminal complaint against M.M. for death threats he had allegedly made. On 15 March 2006 the first instance court found M.M. guilty of repeatedly threatening M.T. that he would kill her, himself 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 appeal court reduced that treatment to the duration of M.M.’s prison sentence.   M.M. served his sentence and was released on 3 July 2006.   On 15 August 2006 he shot dead M.T. and their daughter, V.T., before committing suicide by turning the gun on himself.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30   October 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourgr), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained, under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that the State had failed to take adequate measures to protect M.T. and V.T. and had not conducted an effective investigation into the possible responsibility of the State for their deaths.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   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. had been serious and that all reasonable steps should have been taken to protect them.   The Court noted, however, that no search of M.M.’s premises and 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 those criminal proceedings had stressed the need for continued psychiatric treatment, the Government had failed to show that M.M. had actually been properly treated. Indeed, M.M. had not followed an individual programme during his prison term even though it had been required by law. Nor had he been examined immediately before his release from prison in order to assess whether he had posed a risk of carrying out his death threats against M.T. and V.T. once free.   The Court therefore concluded that no adequate measures had been taken by the relevant domestic authorities to protect the lives of M.T. and V.T., in violation of Article 2.   The Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article   2 regarding the failure of the State to carry out a thorough investigation into the possible responsibility of its agents for the deaths of M.T. and V.T.   Article 13   Lastly, the Court held that there was no need to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article   13 given that it had established the State’s responsibility under Article 2.     Judge Nicolaou expressed a concurring 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.