CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 janvier 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary January 2025 Ghaoui v. France - 41208/21 Judgment 16.1.2025 [Section V] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Effective investigation Article 2-2 Use of force Applicant left paraplegic as result of shot fired at his car by police officer in self-defence because applicant was going to hit another officer while driving away to evade police check: no violation Facts   – The applicant was approached in a car park by three uniformed police officers from the night-time dog unit. Upon seeing them, he quickly started his car and drove towards one of the officers, who was signalling for him to stop. Another officer, believing that the car would collide with his colleague, fired two shots at the applicant. The car ran into the first officer, injuring him. One of the bullets passed through the front passenger-side window and hit the applicant, causing a spinal cord injury at the level of one vertebra and resulting in total paralysis of his lower limbs (paraplegia). A police investigation concluded that the police officer’s use of his weapon had been proportionate to the threat posed by the car driving towards his colleague. Following a criminal complaint by the applicant against the police, a judicial investigation found that there was no case to answer. The officer who had fired the shots, upon seeing the vehicle drive forward as the applicant had sought to evade the police check, had taken absolutely necessary action to protect his colleague. Since he had not had sufficient time to give any warning, he was found to have acted in self-defence. The applicant was convicted of drug trafficking. He was also found guilty of aggravated refusal to comply with a police order. An appeal was lodged against the latter judgment. Law   – Article   2: (a)   Procedural aspect   – The Court noted that an investigation had been opened of the public prosecutor’s own motion. It had unambiguously found that the applicant was criminally liable for attempting to run over a police officer, of whose status he could not have been unaware, and that the second officer’s response to the serious, imminent threat which the applicant had posed to his colleague had been proportionate. In the light of those findings, the public prosecutor had not considered it necessary to initiate criminal proceedings, to conduct further inquiries or even to refer the matter to an investigating judge. The Court then rejected the allegations that the authorities lacked independence and impartiality. Admittedly, there had been delays and periods of inaction in the investigation. However, its excessive length, particularly with the delay in expert’s assessments, had been remedied at domestic level by compensation, awarded on the basis of material submitted by the applicant. Moreover, the flaws in the investigation had ultimately not prevented the national authorities from establishing the key facts in issue or from determining whether the use of force had been absolutely necessary and proportionate. In fact, the national authorities had failed to elucidate only two aspects of the events in dispute, and the Court could not criticise them for that failure given how extremely quickly the action had taken place and the absence of objective witnesses unconnected to the parties. The Court further observed that, on the basis of the evidence gathered, two investigating judges and three Investigation Division judges had formed the conviction, endorsed by the Court of Cassation, that the shots fell within the legal framework governing self-defence   – thus clearing the police officer of any criminal liability   – and that there was therefore no need to commit him for trial in a criminal court. The Court reiterated that there was no obligation under Article   2 for all prosecutions to result in a conviction. It considered that, in the present case, calling into question the findings of the domestic courts would be tantamount to undermining the principle of subsidiarity. It followed that the investigation had been impartial, independent, effective and appropriate. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (b)   Substantive aspect   – The Court had previously found that the legal framework governing self-defence under French law was compatible with the Convention. The police officer’s actions in the present case had been aimed at defending one of his colleagues “from unlawful violence” within the meaning of Article   2 §   2   (a) of the Convention. In that connection, the Court observed that the established facts were not inconsistent with the layout of the site, the applicant’s injuries, the evidence gathered and the statements taken during the investigation. In addition, the police officers had had to react without any specific prior preparation, not least because they belonged to the dog unit rather than to the serious crime unit. Lastly, the events had taken place within a matter of seconds, which could have made it difficult, if not impossible, to fire a warning shot. The Court would not speculate in the abstract as to whether the police officers could have chosen another strategy, such as shooting at the wheels of the vehicle; nor would it require incapacitating means to be used before resorting to firearms. While the widespread adoption of those alternatives was desirable as a way to gradually limit recourse to potentially lethal methods, an obligation to use them as a principle, without taking into account the circumstances of a particular case, would impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law-enforcement officials, which might be at the expense of their lives and those of others, particularly given the unpredictability of human behaviour. The Court reiterated that it could not substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who had been required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life or the lives of others. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that even though the applicant had been unknown to the police, panic-stricken and unarmed, his conduct   – starting his car and accelerating sharply while a police officer was in front of him ordering him to stop   – could reasonably have been interpreted as indicating that he had been going to hit that officer, despite the warnings. The Court considered that the domestic courts had amply discussed the proportionality of the use of force and concluded that the police officer had acted in self-defence and in a manner which was absolutely necessary, and that he had thus been permitted to use appropriate means   – firing two shots   – to defend his colleague. Their findings in that regard had been neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable, but based on a thorough, comprehensive analysis of the evidence gathered. The applicant had not raised any arguments capable of casting serious doubt on the finding of the national criminal courts and authorities that the police officer’s two virtually simultaneous shots had been strictly proportionate. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See Makaratzis v.   Greece [GC], 50385/99, 20   December 2004, Legal Summary ; Giuliani and Gaggio v.   Italy [GC], 23458/02, 24   March 2011, Legal Summary ; Armani Da Silva v.   the United Kingdom [GC], 5878/08, 30   March 2016, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .