CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sABA9B881 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s71C8BE52 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s77716D4A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 7 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34859/24 Shaban KAPLLANAJ against Albania lodged on 18 November 2024 communicated on 17 March 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE The applicant’s son’s death On 1 September 2016 it appears that the applicant’s son flew from Munich to Tirana. In the afternoon of that day, he allegedly took a staircase to an internal roof top of the Tirana airport and shouted that he would jump from it. A number of private security officers of the airport and policemen invited him to calm down. However he allegedly responded “I am spiderman” and shortly thereafter jumped from the roof, dying on the spot. Investigation and court proceedings Following the applicant’s criminal complaint, the Tirana prosecution office opened an investigation into “incitement to suicide” ( shkaktim i vetëvrasjes ). On 12 June 2017 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation as the elements of the offense were not made out. The applicant challenged that decision. He maintained that the prosecutor failed to investigate the safety rules applicable at the airport and in particular the ones applying to the stairs that the victim had taken to climb into the roof. He raised questions as to why the access to the internal roof had been open. Also, in his view the prosecutor had not investigated whether there were standard operating procedures that the police or private security officers of the airport should implement in similar cases and whether they were implemented. He added that the prosecutor had examined the footage of only one camera and had failed to take the recordings of more cameras. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the prosecutor had failed to establish the victim’s actions before the incident; how he had re-entered the airport premises; with whom he had been in touch on that day; and whether he had disclosed any signs of mental disorders in the past. On 15 December 2017 the Tirana District Court dismissed the challenge. It found that the victim’s death had occurred as a result of his own actions and that no one was criminally responsible for it. On 1 February 2018 and 7 March 2023 the Tirana Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals, in essence on the same grounds as the district court. So did the Constitutional Court on 20 June 2024. Three dissenting judges argued that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. Complaints The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect his son’s life and their procedural obligation to investigate his death. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant claim compensation from the State and/or the airport operator for the alleged substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see Mustafa Tunç and   Fecire Tunç v. Turkey   [GC], no.   24014/05, § 131, 14 April 2015)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular:   (a) did the domestic authorities take adequate and appropriate steps to protect the applicant’s son’s life? In this connection: (i) how did the victim gain access to the airport’s internal rooftop from which he jumped? (ii) what were the safety rules applicable to the relevant area of the airport and were they complied with in the circumstances? (iii) was there an appropriate reaction of the State officers following the victim’s climbing to the rooftop, in line with any applicable operational protocols ( see, Mikayil Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan , no. 4762/05, §§ 98-100, 17   December 2009)?   (b) was the investigation in breach of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention? Did it adequately address, among other relevant issues, the factual and legal aspects indicated in Question 2 (a) above?   The Government are invited to submit a full copy of the case-file.