CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
Hearing: Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 56080/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-11-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 56080/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-12-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1215JUD005608013
Respondent state: PRT
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;41
Judges: András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Strasbourg case-law cited: Arskaya v. Ukraine, no 45076/05, § 89, 5 December 2013;Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no 24109/07, § 82, 27 January 2015;Bajić v. Croatia, no 41108/10, § 93, 13 November 2012;Byrzykowski v. Poland, no 11562/05, 27 June 2006, § 104;Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no 32967/96, ECHR 2002‑I;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014;Codarcea v. Romania, no 31675/04, § 104, 2 June 2009;De Santis and Olanda v. Italy (dec.), no 35887/11, § 45, 9 July 2013;Dodov v. Bulgaria, no 59548/00, § 87-98, 17 January 2008;Erikson v. Italy (dec.), no 37900/97, 26 October 1999;Glass v. the United Kingdom, no 61827/00, § 87, ECHR 2004 II;Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I;Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 122, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, §§ 74-78 and 86-92, Reports 1998 I;Kudra v. Croatia, no 13904/07, § 120, 18 December 2012;L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III;Lazzarini and Ghiacci v. Italy (dec.), no 53749/00, 7 November 2002;Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no 37703/97, §§ 89‑90, ECHR 2002‑VIII;McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no 28883/95, §§ 116-161, ECHR 2001 III;Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, no 13423/09, § 97, ECHR 2013;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, § 49, ECHR 2009;N.B. v. Slovakia, no 29518/10, §§ 76 à 78, 12 June 2012;Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no 48609/06, § 88, 18 June 2013;Oyal v. Turkey, no 4864/05, §§ 74-76, 23 March 2010;Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 46477/99, 4 June 2001;Počkajevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 76774/01, 21 October 2004;Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V;Pūpēdis v. Latvia (dec.), no 53631/00, 15 February 2001;R.M.D. v. Switzerland, 26 September 1997, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VI;Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no 52391/99, §§ 286-289 and 323-357, ECHR 2007-II;Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v. Switzerland, no 41773/98, §§ 53-69 and 80-86, 7 February 2006;Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 195, 9 April 2009;Süleyman Ege v. Turkey, no 45721/09, § 59, 25 June 2013;Trocellier v. France (dec.), no 75725/01, ECHR 2006–XIV;V.C. v. Slovakia, no 18968/07, §§ 107 à 117, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Vo v. France [GC], no 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII;Worm v. Austria (dec.), no 22714/93, 27 November 1995
Conclusion: Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE