Use of unjustified deadly force by a police officer in a poorly planned operation in order to apprehend a suspect. Violation of the right to life
JUDGMENT
Pârvu v. Romania 30.08.2022 (app. no. 13326/18)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation of a chaotic police operation in which her husband had
been shot in the head after officers had mistaken him for an international fugitive. Her husband died
in hospital shortly afterwards.
The Court had serious doubts whether the manner in which the police had responded during the
incident had been “absolutely necessary”. The Court was not convinced either by the arguments put
forward, first self-defence, then a combination of self-defence and accidental shooting.
It was particularly concerned by the planning and control of an operation where it had been possible
to make a significant error in identifying a suspect and the officers involved had not been clearly
identifiable as being from the police.
The investigation, lasting more than 11 years, had moreover been ineffective, with the domestic
courts themselves identifying various deficiencies over four judicial decisions.
Lastly, the Court pointed out that there had already been similar cases against Romania forwarded
to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers for enforcement and considered that general
measures were called for under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement) to ensure that
allegations of excessive use of force by the police were effectively investigated.
PROVISION
Article 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ana-Bianca Pârvu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Brăila
(Romania).
The shooting of the applicant’s husband, Sorin Pârvu, took place in Brăila on 26 September 2009
when a police squad, made up of local officers and officers called in from Bucharest, surrounded the
car he was driving at a red traffic light, believing that he was a dangerous fugitive wanted on charges
of murder and robbery.
According to the Government, the police squad ordered Mr Pârvu and his passenger to get out of
the car. According to eyewitness testimony provided by the applicant, the officers opened fire
without warning.
Mr Pârvu tried to escape by reversing into one of the police cars. One of the police officers, D.G.,
who was coordinating the operation, jumped out of that car, opened the back door of the car
Mr Pârvu was driving and shot him in the head from behind.
The police immediately realised that they had “missed the target.”
The investigation into the killing, lasting 11 years, came to the conclusion that the incident had
involved a combination of legitimate self-defence and accidental shooting. In particular, D.G. had
cocked his gun in self-defence when Mr Pârvu had reversed into the police car, then lost his balance
when the back door of Mr Pârvu’s car had swung open and hit his elbow, resulting in the cocked
pistol unintentionally going off.
A criminal investigation opened against Mr Pârvu for the attempted murder of a police officer was
ultimately ended in 2018 because of his passing.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Firstly, the Court found that the domestic investigation into the events resulting in Mr Pârvu’s death
had not been effective. It had lasted from September 2009 to April 2021 with the domestic courts
identifying various deficiencies over four judicial decisions and ordering that the case be sent back to
the prosecutor’s office for further investigation. A number of questions with regard to crucial facts in
the case have been left open. Notably, the issue of the police operation’s planning and control was
only superficially addressed. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of
Article 2 because of the authorities’ failure to carry out a thorough investigation within a reasonable
time.
Furthermore, the Court had serious doubts about several aspects of the use of lethal force in the
applicant’s case. It reiterated that the use of such force by the police could be justified in certain
circumstances under Article 2 of the Convention but that that did not grant police officers carte
blanche.
In particular, it was not convinced that D.G. could have honestly believed that the police officers had
been exposed to a clear and immediate danger. As established by the domestic authorities themselves, D.G. had fired the fatal shot once Mr Pârvu’s car had stopped and the officers had
avoided any impact with it.
It was also doubtful about the accidental nature of the shooting. Despite three court orders of 2011,
2014 and 2016, investigators had failed to seek a neurologist’s opinion on whether a hit to the elbow
could have led to the fatal shot being triggered.
The Court also considered that the investigation had not adequately addressed the fact, as noted by
a domestic court in 2016, that D.G., who was not a part of the specially trained police squad called in
from Bucharest to immobilise the suspect, had apparently intervened outside his mission – which
had been to identify the suspect.
Moreover, the Court found that there had been serious issues in the planning and control of the
police operation. The prosecuting authorities had only superficially explained how it had been
possible for the police to make such a significant error in identifying their suspect; there were doubts
as to whether the officers involved in the events had been clearly identifiable as being from the
police; and, there had been no arrangements made for an ambulance to be at the ready, despite the
fact that the operation had involved a large number of officers and the arrest of a potentially
dangerous suspect.
Lastly, the Government had failed to explain whether an adequate legislative and administrative
framework had been in place to safeguard citizens against arbitrariness and abuse of force.
In conclusion, the manner in which the police had responded to the perceived threat of Mr Pârvu
attempting to escape could not be considered as having been “no more than absolutely necessary”.
In particular, the operation had not been planned so as to minimise the risk to his life. There had
therefore been a further violation of Article 2.
Enforcement (Article 46)
The Court considered that general measures were called for in the enforcement of this judgment to
ensure that allegations of excessive use of force by the police in Romania were effectively
investigated.
It noted in particular that it had already made similar findings in three other cases2 against Romania.
Those three cases have since been forwarded for enforcement to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, which continues to evaluate the general measures required in Romania to
prevent the unjustified use of potentially lethal use of force during law enforcement interventions
and to guarantee effective investigations into such incidents (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)106).
It referred in particular to a request made by the CM in another group of Romanian cases3 for better
planning of law enforcement operations in order to avoid the use of lethal force, and a
recommendation by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) in its
2022 report on Romania to ensure that prosecutors had recourse to their own investigators, not
external police officers, to carry out certain tasks.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant 65,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,630 in respect of costs and expenses.
