Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 142
June 2011
Trévalec v. Belgium - 30812/07
Judgment 14.6.2011 [Section II]
Article 2
Article 2-1
Life
Non-fatal shooting of journalist by special operations police unit which had not
been informed that his presence had been authorised by local chief of police:
violation; no violation
Facts – The applicant, a reporter, was engaged by a production company which
had obtained police authorisation for him and a journalist colleague to film the
operations of a special unit, the anti-gang squad. At around 1 a.m. on 12 January
2003, in response to a call from a person living nearby, the police radio operator
directed police officers, including M.S. and Y.M., to an area of warehouses. The
purpose of the operation was to apprehend two individuals who had been acting
suspiciously and seemed to be armed. Shortly after the interception and
immobilisation of the suspects by other police officers, the applicant appeared a
few metres behind M.S. and Y.M. In a reflex action in self-defence in the heat of
the moment, mistaking the reporter’s camera in the dark for a weapon and
feeling threatened, the two officers fired at the applicant, seriously injuring him in
the legs.
The persons in charge of the operation were immediately contacted and informed
of the accident, and the public prosecutor was notified about ten minutes later.
The investigating judge immediately took various measures to establish the facts
and preserve the evidence.
Law – Article 2
(a) Substantive aspect– M.S. and Y.M. had believed in good faith that their lives
were at risk and had used their weapon in self-defence, believing they were
acting within the law. Given the subject of his report, it was evident that the
applicant was likely to find himself in situations where he risked injury or even
death. In that context he depended for his safety on the police, which had
accepted that responsibility when authorising his presence. Without any written
regulations, decisions in that kind of situation were taken on a case-by-case
basis. The police authorities had made sure that the applicant had countersigned
the authorisation to film that had been issued by the police chief on the condition
that he complied with the safety instructions given by the inspectors. In addition,
bullet-proof jackets had been provided to the applicant and his colleague, who
had been invited to a preparatory meeting and had been given appropriate
instructions. However, the transcription of the communications emitted on the
night of the incident from the police “radio-operations centre” showed that the
officers on the ground had not been specifically informed of the presence of the
applicant and his colleague with the anti-gang squad. The officers who had fired
the shots and their colleagues from “Unit 101” and the dog-handling unit, had
confirmed that, whilst they had not been unaware that a television crew was