CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 mars 2005

.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 } .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. 73 March 2005 Bone v. France (dec.) - 69869/01 Decision 1.3.2005 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Accidental death of a passenger getting down from a train, and effectiveness of the investigation: inadmissible   The applicants’ fourteen-year-old son was travelling by train. As the train arrived at the station, he attempted to alight on the side of the track rather than on the appropriate platform. Another train was approaching on the track and struck and killed him. The preliminary investigation established the facts on the basis of a medical examination of the victim, statements taken from witnesses, sketches and photographs of the scene, and the train’s data recorder. The applicants lodged a complaint against a person or persons unknown, alleging manslaughter, and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. The judicial investigation, directed mainly at the State railway company, concluded that there was no case to answer. The expert report indicated that the mandatory safety measures had been observed and that the accident had been caused by the victim’s reckless conduct. Subsequent appeals were dismissed. Inadmissible under Article   2: Article 2 could not guarantee everyone an absolute level of safety in all everyday activities that entailed a risk of physical injury. In particular, the State could not be expected to assume a positive obligation to protect careless travellers. The victim himself had opened the door on the side of the track, had been aware that he was not alighting on the accessible side of the station platform and, when alerted to this by a friend, had thought that he could cross the track to the platform, thereby disregarding the warning on the carriage door about the serious risk entailed in such circumstances. The victim’s extremely reckless conduct had been the decisive cause of his accidental death, and the national authorities could not be criticised for failing to take steps that could have resulted in his life being saved. The judicial authorities had conducted a thorough and impartial examination of the circumstances surrounding the death and had concluded that the railway company could not be held criminally liable, in reasoned decisions following adversarial proceedings to which the applicants had had full access, in particular through their lawyer: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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