Published on 12 September 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 47429/21 Marian FLORI against Romania lodged on 1 November 2021 communicated on 24 August 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged excessive use of force by a police officer who made use of a firearm resulting in life-threatening injuries to the applicant and the lack of effectiveness of the criminal investigation conducted in the incident.

On 20 March 2019 the applicant was involved in a quarrel with another individual on the street; when police officers came to the scene, the applicant fled in his car. The person he was quarrelling with told police officers that the applicant was drunk, that he was holding a bottle of beer and that he had sworn at him. The police officers began to chase him by car. During the pursuit, the applicant stopped his car and tried to escape on foot. One of the police officers chasing him shot him in the left leg. According to the police officer, before shooting, he gave a verbal warning of his intent to use a firearm and fired four warning shots.

According to the forensic report, the applicant needed 150 days of medical care for the injuries he suffered to heal; these injuries were life-threatening.

Following the incident, a criminal investigation was opened against the police officer, but eventually discontinued. The applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s office’s decision was rejected by final Interlocutory Judgment of 26 April 2021 (drafted on 11 May 2021) of the Dolj County Court. The domestic court found that the rules for firing a gun had been complied with (verbal warning and warning shots as required by Law no. 218/2002 on the organization and functioning of the Romanian Police) and that the use of force was proportional. It dismissed the applicant’s argument concerning the breach of the stricter rules on the use of firearms provided by the amended Law no. 17/1996 on the regime of firearms and ammunition which limited it to situations where the person resisting arrest poses a risk to life and limb.

Invoking Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the police officer had made use of potentially lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary, with the domestic investigative authorities and court failing to adequately assess the proportionality of such use through an effective investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been infringed in the present case? In particular:

Was it absolutely necessary for the purposes of Article 2 § 2 to resort to a use of force which threatened the applicant’s life ( Soare and Others v. Romania , no. 24329/02, §§ 126-130, 22 February 2011)?

Was the respondent State, in the circumstances of the present case, equipped with the necessary legislative, administrative and regulatory measures defining the limited circumstances in which law ‑ enforcement officials may use force (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI6)?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII) and recalling the Court’s general approach of examining the investigation proceedings as a whole (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 286, 30 March 2016), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. In the light of the Dolj County Court’s findings as well as the Romanian Government’s related submissions which led to the adoption by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 2021 at the 1406 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)106, the Government are invited to elaborate on the legislative and regulatory framework concerning the use of firearms by the police applicable at the relevant time. In particular, they are invited to specify if Law no. 17/1996 on the regime of firearms and ammunition was applicable to the facts of the case.