Streetwalker δεν σταματάς λίγο να διασπείρεις ανακρίβειες; Είσαι σίγουρος για αυτά που λές;
Ή είναι ηθελημένη παραπληροφόρηση;
To ΕΔΑΔ δεν ασχολήθηκε με την ελληνική δικαιοσύνη, γιατί θα ανέφερε αμέσως αμέσως άλλο άρθρο (το 6 και όχι το 2). Μπορεί βέβαια να μην ήταν καν το ζήτουμενο της προσφυγής. Πάντως, στο μοναδικό κομμάτι της ελληνικής δικαστικής απόφασης που έκρινε, στην αποζημίωση, δικαίωσε την Ελλάδα.
Δεν ασχολήθηκε λοιπόν με την Ελληνική Δικαιοσύνη το ΕΔΑΔ;
Εγώ γιατί στην απόφαση διαβάζω άλλα;
58. In the present case, the Court notes firstly that it is undisputed between the parties that Nikolaos Leonidis was killed in the course of a spontaneous police operation by police officer G.A. The Court observes that a judicial determination of the facts took place in the criminal proceedings brought against the police officer. Even though certain facts remain unclear, the Court considers, in the light of all the material produced before it, that there is a sufficient factual and evidentiary basis on which to assess the case,
taking as a starting point the findings of the national courts (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 47, ECHR 2004-XI; and Perk and Others v. Turkey, no. 50739/99, § 57, 28 March 2006).
59.
According to the findings of the domestic courts, the fatal shot was triggered not by any deliberate action on the part of police officer G.A. but by the sudden reaction of the victim. Though the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances cogent elements are required for it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Klaas, cited above, p. 18, § 30).
In the present case and in view of the material provided, the Court sees no reason to question the fact as established by the Greek courts. Therefore, the Court takes the view that Nikolaos Leonidis's death was not the result of a deliberate action.
Επομένως το ΕΔΑΔ δέχθηκε την απόφαση του Μικτού Κακουργιοδικείου Κατερίνης (4-3 η απόφαση) ότι η ανθρωποκτονία δεν ήταν από πρόθεση.
ΑΛΛΑ στο ερώτημα για το αν ο αστυνομικός έδειξε αμέλεια το ΕΔΑΔ όχι μόνον πήρε υπόψην του την απόφαση της μειοψηφίας του Μικτού αλλά βρήκε ότι έγινε παραβίαση του άρθρου 2 της Συνθήκης.
Στην αρχή κάνει μερικές πολύ σημαντικές παρατηρήσεις για τα δεδομένα της υπόθεσης:
62. The Court finds it established that the operation in question was a spontaneous chase decided on the spot by the two police officers and it was mounted with the aim of carrying out an identity check on the applicant's son and his friends. The latter were neither committing any offence nor being violent nor aggressive. In the Court's view, the mere fact that the applicant's son ran away when the two policemen approached him d
oes not imply that he did so because he had committed an illegal act.
This is even more so in the present case where it might not have been initially obvious to him that the two men were policemen. In this connexion, the Court recalls that the two policemen were in plain clothes and were in an unmarked vehicle.
Το οποίο κατά την γνώμη μου είναι εξοργιστικό. Πουθενά δεν αναφέρεται ότι οι 2 αστυνομικοί δήλωσαν την ιδιότητα τους. Όταν βλέπεις να σταματά ένα αυτοκίνητο χωρίς διακριτικά, να πετάγονται δύο τύποι με πιστόλια, το να το βάλεις στα πόδια είναι πολύ λογική αντίδραση.
Στην συνέχεια το ΕΔΑΔ βρίσκει ότι η σύλληψη έγινε με εγκληματική αμέλεια από την μεριά του αστυνομικού:
63. The Court does not find it necessary, however, to establish whether there was initially a need to pull out a weapon during the chase, since it cannot substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life (see Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, § 97, 13 March 2007). However, the Court considers that after he had immobilised the applicant's son,
police officer G.A. had no reason to keep hold of his weapon, especially with his finger on the trigger.
In fact, in the Court's view, the police officer should have put his weapon in its holster before handcuffing Nikolaos Leonidis who was not holding a weapon and was not in any way threatening the police officer's life or limb.
Και Str8 το ΕΔΑΔ παίρνει υπόψη του την μειοψηφία του ποινικού δικαστηρίου. Αυτό που παραθέτεις αφορά αστικό κομμάτι της υπόθεσης. Ας μην μπερδεύουμε τα πράγματα:
64. In this respect, the Court
attaches particular importance to the views expressed by the minority judges of the Katerini Assize Court as to the negligent use of the weapon according to which the gun should not have been cocked, since in that case it needs less pressure on the trigger to fire the gun. In addition, the Court finds no reason to question the findings of the administrative courts which examined the applicant's civil claims and concluded that the use of the firearm by the police officer in order to arrest the deceased had been unlawful and that he had not shown the prudence and discipline expected from a police officer of his experience.
και αν θέλεις το ΕΔΑΔ έχει εκφράσει προηγουμένως την γνώμη του ότι σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις θα πρέπει να υπάρχει και ποινική καταδίκη:
46. The Court notes that the applicant brought civil proceedings against the State in respect of his son's killing by police officer G.A and was successful in these proceedings, being awarded and receiving compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained in that respect (see paragraphs 38-41 above). However, the Court recalls that in cases of wilful ill-treatment or unlawful use of force resulting in death,
the Court considers that the breach of Article 2 cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the relatives of the victim. As it was pointed out in the Nikolova and Velichkova case, this is so because,
if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful police ill-treatment to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough in the prosecution and punishment of those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity and the general legal prohibitions of killing and torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite their fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice. (see, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 55, 20 December 2007).
47. Therefore, the possibility of seeking and receiving compensation represents, in these cases, only one part of the measures necessary to provide redress for the alleged violations.
The Court must, then, also examine the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings against the police officer in order to ascertain whether the applicant was afforded appropriate redress (Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above, § 56).
Επομένως σαφώς το ΕΔΑΔ καταδικάζει την χώρα μας για το ότι δεν είχε πάρει τα αναγκαία μέτρα για να αποτραπεί ένα τέτοιο περιστατικό (κυρίως εκπαίδευση αστυνομικού αλλά και νομοθεσία του 43 για την χρήση όπλων από αστυνομικούς:
66. In the light of the above, the Court considers that, as far as its obligation under the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 to avoid real and immediate risk to life in hot-pursuit police operations, the respondent State had not, at the relevant time, done all that could be reasonably expected of it (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], cited above, § 71).
Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 2.
Στην συνέχεια το ΕΔΑΔ έκρινε ότι η ΕΔΕ που έγινε ήταν ικανοποιητικό μέτρο που πήρε το Κράτος για να διερευνήσει την πράξη του αστυνομικού.
Εδώ όμως αξίζει να δει κανένας την γνώμη του δικαστή που μειοψήφισε και ο οποίος κάνει μερικές πολύ σωστές κατά την γνώμη μου παρατηρήσεις τις οποίες δεν παραθέτω.
Αυτή είναι η αλήθεια για την υπόθεση και όχι όπως παρουσιαστεί μέχρι τώρα και από την μια και την άλλη πλευρά.
