Quick answer
In Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (Grand Chamber, 6 July 2005, applications nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that Bulgaria violated Article 2 by using lethal force to arrest two fleeing, unarmed Roma conscripts and by failing to investigate their deaths effectively. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken with Article 2 because the authorities failed to investigate a possible racist motive, while finding (by eleven votes to six) no violation of the substantive limb of Article 14.
Background and facts
Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov, two young men of Roma origin doing compulsory military service, absented themselves without leave — a minor, non-violent offence. A military-police officer was sent to arrest them. When they fled, unarmed and posing no danger to anyone, the officer shot and killed them. There was evidence that the operation had been conducted with a disregard for life, and testimony suggested that the officer may have used a racial slur.
The complaint
- Article 2 — the unlawful killing and the failure to investigate it effectively; and
- Article 14 with Article 2 — that the killings and the failure to investigate were tainted by racial discrimination.
The Court’s reasoning
On Article 2, the Court held that firearms must never be used to arrest a person suspected only of a non-violent offence who poses no threat to life or limb, even if not using lethal force means the suspect escapes. Recourse to potentially lethal force to apprehend the two men was therefore grossly disproportionate and not “absolutely necessary”; the deficient legal and regulatory framework governing the use of force compounded the breach. The subsequent investigation was also ineffective, in breach of the procedural obligation under Article 2.
On Article 14, the Court drew a distinction between the two limbs. As regards the procedural obligation, the authorities had before them information suggesting a possible racist motive, and were under a duty to investigate whether discrimination may have played a role; their failure to do so violated Article 14 taken with Article 2. As regards the substantive allegation that the killings themselves were an act of racial violence, the Court held — departing from the Chamber — that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that racism was a causal factor, and declined to shift the burden of proof to the Government on that point; accordingly there was no violation of the substantive limb (by eleven votes to six).
The judgment
- unanimously, a violation of Article 2 in respect of the deaths, and a further violation of Article 2 for the failure to investigate effectively;
- unanimously, a violation of Article 14 with Article 2 (failure to investigate a possible racist motive); and
- by eleven votes to six, no violation of the substantive limb of Article 14 with Article 2.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Nachova is a leading authority both on the use of lethal force in law enforcement and on the duty to investigate racist violence. Its recognition of a procedural obligation to unmask any racist motive behind violence has been applied in many later cases concerning attacks on Roma and other minorities, shaping the Court’s approach to discrimination and effective investigation.
What this means for applicants
- Lethal force to arrest a non-dangerous suspect is prohibited under Article 2, even at the cost of the suspect escaping.
- The State must investigate possible racist motives behind violence; failing to do so breaches Article 14.
- Proving a substantive racial motive is difficult and generally requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Nachova v. Bulgaria decide?
The Grand Chamber held that Bulgaria violated Article 2 by using lethal force to arrest two fleeing, unarmed Roma conscripts and by failing to investigate the deaths, and violated Article 14 with Article 2 by failing to investigate a possible racist motive, while finding no violation of the substantive limb of Article 14.
When can police use lethal force to make an arrest?
Firearms must not be used to arrest a person suspected only of a non-violent offence who poses no threat to life; doing so is not “absolutely necessary” under Article 2.
What is the duty to investigate racist motives?
Where there is evidence that violence may have been racially motivated, the authorities must take reasonable steps to investigate that possibility; a failure to do so breaches Article 14 taken with the relevant substantive right.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic
- Biao v. Denmark
- Marckx v. Belgium
- McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom
- Osman v. the United Kingdom
- Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.