CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128 March 2010 Lütfi Demirci and Others   v. Turkey - 28809/05 Judgment 2.3.2010 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Life Suicide of soldier with known psychological disorders during military service: violation   Facts – The applicants are the relatives of a soldier who killed himself in January 2003 during his military service. In December 2002 the deceased had been examined by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him as suffering from anxiety and parasomnia and put him on sick leave for seven days. He was subsequently prescribed antidepressants. The last reports relating to the deceased’s interviews with his superiors dated back to early January 2003 and indicated that he had said he was feeling better. Subsequently, while on guard duty, he committed suicide by shooting himself with his service weapon. Law – Article 2: The prescription for antidepressants was immaterial because the instructions specified that it was preferable to prescribe this treatment in reduced quantities to depressed patients with suicidal tendencies to prevent them from committing suicide by swallowing all the pills at once, and not that the treatment could lead to suicide. The deceased had had medical and psychological examinations and interviews with his superiors on about ten occasions between September 2002 and January 2003. Lastly, his psychological problems were not linked to his military service and did not derive from any debasing treatment that might have been inflicted on him by other soldiers or by his superiors. Furthermore, where a soldier was unfit for tasks that required the use of weapons, the doctors indicated as much in their reports. Even though the authorities had kept the deceased under close supervision, they had failed to provide the requisite protection. Accordingly, they should not have left it up to the deceased to decide to refuse his assignment to canteen service and should not have trusted his mere assertions that he was feeling better. They should have excused him from tasks that involved handling weapons or even prevented him from having any access to weapons at all. The State had a positive obligation to exercise special diligence and afford treatment appropriate to military conditions for soldiers who had psychological problems. In the present case, the deceased’s psychological problems had been diagnosed right at the beginning of his military service, but the system put in place by the State with a view to preventing suicides during that period had not led to concrete measures that could reasonably have been expected from the authorities, namely, preventing the deceased from having access to lethal weapons. There had therefore been a violation of Article   2 regarding the positive obligation on the State to take preventive practical measures to protect the deceased from his own actions. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41: EUR 3,920 to each of the first two applicants and EUR   1,570 to each of the three others in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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