Communicated on 8 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 47909/19 T . V . against Croatia lodged on 5 September 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicant ’ s common-law husband in the course of a police intervention and the ensuing criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death.

The applicant alleges that on 16 November 2017 the police arrested her common-law husband, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, after being informed that he was making trouble in a hotel. She alleges that the police beat him and, even though he had sustained several broken ribs and had swallowed his own finger, tied him to an ambulance stretcher with his belly facing down. In the ambulance vehicle the doctor gave him two injections of sedative, shortly after which he died.

The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers and the medical staff involved. On 25 February 2019 the competent prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint finding that the applicant ’ s common-law husband ’ s death had not been caused by the injuries sustained during his arrest, that the use of force by the police officers was justified and lawful, and that neither the police officers nor the medical staff involved did not commit any criminal offence against the applicant ’ s common-law husband.

The applicant complains, under Article 2 of the Convention, that her common-law husband died as a result of an excessive and disproportionate use of force by the police officers and that the State failed in its positive obligation to protect his life by providing him with adequate emergency medical assistance. She further submits that the investigation into these circumstances was not effective.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant also claims that her common-law husband was subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment when he was in the hands of the police.

She lastly complains that she did not have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant ’ s common-law husband ’ s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

Did his death result from the use of force which was “no more than absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention (see Saoud v. France , no. 9375/02, §§ 88-90, 9 October 2007 and Boukrourou and Others v. France , no. 30059/15, §§ 59-62, 16 November 2017)?

Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of the applicant ’ s common-law husband who was in a vulnerable position and under their control (see Saoud , cited above, § 96)? Was the applicant ’ s common-law husband provided with adequate medical assistance capable of averting a fatal outcome?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 233-234, ECHR 2016, with further references), did the investigation by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant ’ s common-law husband subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 when he was in the hands of the police?

4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?