The applicants' minor son, Ameer Mokhlas, an Iraqi national, died on 29 August 2015 near the island of Symi, following a shot fired by a Greek coastguard during an operation to intercept a boat illegally transporting people to Greece. The facts of the case were disputed between the parties, but they essentially concerned the interception operation of people on the yacht "YAVUSUM 16" (under the Turkish flag) as part of the joint European operation "Poseidon – Maritime Borders 2015" aimed at managing the influx of migrants in the Mediterranean.

According to the applicants, the authorities had sufficient information about the yacht and its capacity and they complained before the ECtHR that the domestic authorities failed to take appropriate action to plan and conduct the operation in question in the best possible way with the primary aim of protecting the persons transported. The applicants alleged that, through their acts and omissions, the national authorities conducted the operation in such a way, in particular through the reckless use of weapons, that it resulted in the death of their son. Furthermore, they argued that the administrative and judicial investigations were inadequate in establishing the responsibility of the perpetrators.

The ECtHR recalled the general principles relating to the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, specifically to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of violations of the substantive aspect of that provision in the context of the use of lethal force by State agents. The court noted that in order to be considered effective, the investigation must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and of making it possible to determine whether the use of force was justified or not in the circumstances of the case and to identify and punish those responsible, if appropriate. Fort this purpose, the authorities must have taken the reasonable measures at their disposal to obtain evidence relating to the facts in question, including eyewitness statements, expert reports and, where appropriate, an autopsy capable of providing a full and accurate account of the injuries and an objective analysis of the clinical findings, including the cause of death. The court highlighted that any deficiency in the national investigation that weakens its ability to establish the cause of death or responsibility risks falling short of this standard.    

The court further added that the findings of the investigation must be based on a meticulous, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant evidence, and that the rejection of a clearly compelling line of inquiry compromises the investigation's ability to establish the circumstances of the case and the identity of the persons responsible. The court added that the nature and degree of scrutiny required to meet the minimum standard of effectiveness depend on the circumstances of the case and they must be assessed in the light of all the relevant facts and having regard to the practical realities of investigative work. Lastly, where an individual has lost his or her life at the hands of a State agent in suspicious circumstances, the competent domestic authorities must use a particularly strict scrutiny. 

In the court's view, as the persons responsible for the criminal investigation were the coastguard colleagues involved in the incident in question, the authorities failed to conduct an independent investigation to determine the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants' son. The court also added that investigative measures which were clearly necessary after the yacht expert report was issued, were not carried out, thus compromising the ability of the investigation to shed full light on the circumstances of the incident in question.

The court ruled that the investigation conducted by the national authorities contained numerous shortcomings which led in particular to the loss of evidence and which affected the effectiveness of the investigation, which in particular did not make it possible to establish the exact circumstances in which Ameer Mokhlas's death occurred and to identify and – where appropriate – punish those responsible. Thus, the court found a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention in its procedural aspect due to the shortcomings in the investigation.

Regarding the use of lethal force, the court observed that it was not disputed that the applicants' son died as a result of the injury caused by a bullet fired on 29 August 2015 at one of the skippers of the yacht transporting the applicants’ relatives to Greece. However, the court noted that there was insufficient evidence in the present case to establish certain facts beyond reasonable doubt, which resulted from the authorities’ lack of a thorough and effective investigation. In this case, the court considered that before carrying out the immobilising shots and arresting the skippers, the coastguard did not take into account the possibility that there were other passengers on board the yacht and that they therefore did not exercise the vigilance required to ensure that any risk to life would be reduced to a minimum. Thus, the interception operation in question was not carried out in such a way as to minimise the use of lethal force and the possible risks to the life of the applicants' son. Thus, the court found a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention in its substantive aspect due to the conduct of the interception operation.

Due to insufficient evidence to establish certain facts beyond reasonable doubt, the court concluded that the use of force in the circumstances of the case, did not go beyond what was "absolutely necessary", and that it was not established that unnecessarily excessive force was used. Thus, there was no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention under its substantive limb in this respect.