[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kayak v. Turkey - 60444/08 - CLIN [2012] ECHR 1896 (10 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1896.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 1896

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154

July 2012

Kayak v. Turkey - 60444/08

Judgment 10.7.2012 [Section II]

Article 2

Positive obligations

Article 2-1

Life

Fatal stabbing of youth by pupil outside school: violation

 

Facts - The applicants are the mother and brother of a 15-year-old boy who died after being stabbed by E.G., an 18-year-old pupil, in front of the junior school where E.G. was a boarder. In September 2002 the victim, a former pupil of that school (but at the time attending a higher school), went to the junior school with some friends. They got into an argument in the school playground with E.G. and in the ensuing dispute E.G. stabbed the victim, 150 metres away from the school, with a bread knife that he had stolen from the school canteen. The boy died later that day. In October 2002 the Junior Schools Inspectorate initiated an urgent investigation, which found no direct negligence on the part of the schools’ administrators and teachers in relation to the incident. In October 2005 E.G. was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, subsequently reduced to six years and eight months. In June 2003 the applicants brought administrative-liability proceedings but their action was dismissed by the Administrative Court. In January 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the court below and in July 2008 dismissed an application for review lodged by the applicants.

Law - Article 2: The applicants’ relative had tragically met his death as a result of a series of unexpected circumstances and it had not been possible to identify the victim beforehand as the potential target of mortal wounding by his assailant. Whilst the fact that an 18 year old was still at a junior school contravened the statutory provisions governing junior schools at the material time, the mere breach of the regulations was not sufficient in itself to raise an issue under Article 2. It would be necessary to establish that a lack of intervention on the part of the authorities in that connection caused a real and immediate risk for the victim. Nor did it appear that E.G., even though he had behavioural problems, had displayed any aggressive or violent behaviour before the incident that would have required special supervision of the victim. The issue in the present case, therefore, was the State’s obligation, through the school authorities, to assume responsibility for the pupils entrusted to it. The mission vested in schools in this context implied the existence of a primary duty to protect them against any form of violence to which they might be subjected while under the school’s supervision. Whilst the teaching staff could not be expected to watch over each pupil all the time, movements inside and outside the school required heightened surveillance. It transpired that, owing to a shortage of staff, the supervision of pupils had sometimes been entrusted to the pupils themselves. The school’s administration had warned the competent authorities about the difficulty of maintaining security around the school and had requested specific assistance, but to no avail. In addition, the perpetrator had managed to steal the murder weapon, a knife, from the school’s premises at a time when he should have been under the supervision of teachers. Whilst the teaching staff, once informed about the confrontation, had tried to intervene, the Court found it unfortunate that one of the teachers, after being told that E.G. was going to fetch a knife from the canteen, merely waited for him at the door for several minutes without intercepting him. The Court was thus of the view that, in the circumstances of the case, the national authorities had failed in their duty to ensure supervision on the premises of the school attended by the perpetrator of the murder.

Conclusion: violation (five votes to two).

The Court further found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as the length of the proceedings had not met the “reasonable-time” requirement.

Article 41: EUR 15,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,513 to the applicant mother in respect of pecuniary damage.

 

© 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