«The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the Austrian authorities had failed to protect her and her children from her violent husband, which had resulted in his murdering their son. In this judgment the Grand Chamber clarified for the first time the general principles applicable in domestic violence cases under Article 2 of the Convention. It expanded on those principles on the basis of the “Osman test” (Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998). The Court reiterated that the authorities had to provide an immediate response to allegations of domestic violence and that special diligence was required from them in dealing with such cases. The authorities had to establish whether there existed a real and immediate risk to the life of one or more identified victims; to that end they were under a duty to carry out a risk assessment that was autonomous, proactive and comprehensive. They had to assess the reality and immediacy of the risk taking due account of the particular context of domestic violence cases. If the outcome of the risk assessment was that there was a real and immediate risk to life, the authorities’ obligation to take preventive operational measures was triggered. Such measures had to be adequate and proportionate to the level of the risk assessed. The Court agreed with the Government that, on the basis of what had been known to the authorities at the material time, there had been no indications of a real and immediate risk of further violence against the applicant’s son outside the areas for which a barring order had been issued, let alone a lethality risk. The authorities’ assessment had identified a certain level of non-lethal risk to the children in the context of the domestic violence perpetrated by the father, the primary target of which had been the applicant. The measures ordered by the authorities appeared to have been adequate to contain any risk of further violence against the children and the authorities had been thorough and conscientious in taking all necessary protective measures. No real and immediate risk of an attack on the children’s lives had been discernible. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, there had been no obligation incumbent on the authorities to take further preventive operational measures specifically with regard to the applicant’s children, whether in private or public spaces, such as issuing a barring order in respect of the children’s school. Taking into account the requirements of Austrian criminal law and those flowing from Article 5 of the Convention safeguarding the rights of the accused, the Court found no reason to question the findings of the Austrian courts, which had decided not to order E.’s pre-trial detention. In that connection the Court reiterated that under Article 5 no detention was permissible unless it was in compliance with domestic law.»

Direct link to the judgment (hudoc.echr.coe.int)
Accès direct au communiqué de presse (hudoc.echr.coe.int)
Direct link to the press release (hudoc.echr.coe.int