Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199

August-September 2016

Jørgensen and Others v. Denmark (dec.) - 30173/12

Decision 28.6.2016 [Section II]

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Six month period

Application alleging violation of Article 2 of the Convention lodged less than six months after final decision in civil proceedings but more than six months after final decision in criminal proc eedings: inadmissible

Facts – The first and second applicants were relatives of two men who were killed in December 2001 when police shot at a four-wheel-drive vehicle in which they were travelling. The police said they had been acting in self-defence afte r their patrol car was rammed several times. The Regional State Prosecutor immediately initiated a criminal investigation into the police officers’ conduct, but decided not to prosecute after finding that the officers had acted in justified self-defence. H is decision was ultimately upheld by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in February 2005. In December 2006 the applicants issued proceedings for compensation in the civil courts. Their claims were dismissed by the High Court in a decision that was u pheld by the Supreme Court in November 2011.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicants alleged a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Their application was lodged in May 2012, within six months of the Supreme Court’s decision, but more than six mo nths after the DPP’s decision. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month rule.

Law – Article 35 § 1: The crucial question was whether the subsequent civil proceedings before the civil courts, which had full jurisd iction to determine whether the disputed account of events and the investigation were compatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, were also an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 which the applicants were required to exhaust.

The Court noted that the Regional State Prosecutor’s account of the events and assessment of the evidence had been supervised by both the Police Complaints Board and the DPP. Neither the initial investigation against the police officers nor the reopened invest igation had led to criminal proceedings against them as it was found that they had been acting in justified self-defence.

In these circumstances, the Court was not convinced that instituting subsequent civil proceedings would, in general, have increased the possibility of the courts finding a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (which would have led to a reopening of the investigation and possible criminal proceedings). It noted, in particular, that the civil proceedings were initiated more than two years after the final decision by the DPP, that no new decisive evidence had been discovered in the meantime and that both t he High Court and the Supreme Court had unanimously found against the applicants.

Accordingly, the civil proceedings subsequent to the DPP’s final decision were not a remedy requiring exhaustion and the application had been lodged out of time.

Conclusion : inadmissible (out of time).

© 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