Two Afghan nationals (the first and third applicants), and two Iraqi nationals (the second and fourth applicants), complained before the ECtHR on grounds of Article 2 of the Convention, both substantive and procedural limbs and argued that the Greek authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into the sinking of a boat near the Greek coast, in the maritime area southeast of Agathonissi island, in March 2028.

The first and second applicants and the fourth applicant are the “surviving applicants” who were on board of the sinking boat, and the third applicant was residing in an asylum seeker reception center in Larissa. Several relatives of the applicants lost their lives in the sinking.     

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the first and second applicants and the fourth applicant complained that the acts and/or omissions by the authorities and, in particular, the coast guard, resulted into their lives having been endangered when the boat they were on sank on 16 March 2018 off the coast of Agathonissi Island. All the applicants also complained of the deaths of their relatives in the shipwreck. They also alleged that the investigations conducted by the authorities were inadequate.

On the procedural aspects, the applicants complained on multiple aspects related to the investigation conducted by the authorities. Although the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor at the Maritime Court was deemed thorough by the applicants, they considered that several omissions resulted into a deficient collection of essential evidence, thus leading to an incomplete investigation. First, the parties submitted opposite statements with regard to the date when the shipwreck happened. The applicants explained that the authorities conducted two different operations, one on 16 March 2018 aimed at detecting a potentially distressed vessel, and another operation on 17 March 2018 which was a search and rescue operation, presented by the Government as one of the largest operations ever undertaken to find and rescue people at sea. The applicants affirmed that the shipwreck happened on 16 March 2018 and argued that the coroner's conclusion that the deaths took place between 8 p.m. on 16 March 2018 and 4 a.m. on 17 March 2018 did not prove that, as the Government claimed, the shipwreck took place early in the morning of 17 March 2018.  

They also alleged that the investigation lacked independence because the Coast Guard staff made statements in a press release of 28 March 20218, while the criminal investigation was ongoing, reportedly misleading the public on the date of the incident. Second, the applicants alleged that the Greek authorities questioned the official statements of the surviving applicants, even though they were the only eyewitnesses to the incident, and of having preferred instead to rely on the testimonies of coast guard officers. They also mentioned that no interpreter was presented when they meet the head of the Samos coast guards, which resulted into inconsistencies in the statements because it was not possible to communicate and gather correct information without Arabic interpretation. Third, the applicants complained that the prosecutor of the Court of Appeal took into consideration mainly the testimonies of, amongst other, the coast guards, fishermen and journalist from Samos, instead of taking into account details and documents submitted by them. They also contested the assertion by the Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal that the fact that the surviving applicants were found soaked and in good health proved that the shipwreck occurred on 17 March 2018. Fourth, they claimed that the forensic report was poor, contained errors and crucial omission, which could not be remedied because their requests before their requests to the Public Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance in Kos were unsuccessful. Fifth, the applicants alleged that there was a structural and frequent issue due to the lack of electronic records of the vessels’ routes.

The national authorities stated that: i) they had fulfilled their obligations, ii) the event happened in the early hours of 17 March 2018, iii) a wealth of evidence was gathered, iv) the applicants were involved in the investigation and had the opportunity to participate in all the proceedings before various national authorities.

The court reaffirmed the principles and standards established in Safi and Others v. Greece, where the court has already found ineffective an investigation carried out by the Greek authorities into the deaths of migrants during a Greek coast guard operation.   

The court reiterated that the procedural requirement of Article 2 of the Convention is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness of the inquiry, the participation of the deceased's relatives in the inquiry, and the independence of the inquiry. The court noted that in the present case three investigations were conducted: initiated by the port authority of Samos, the sworn administrative inquiry, and the preliminary investigation conducted following the criminal complaint filed by the applicants, which all were capable of establishing the facts and if necessary, the prosecution of those held responsible. The court first noted that the persons respectively in charge of the three investigations, and who in that capacity collected the testimonies, belonged to the coast guard, hierarchy subordinated to the Ministry of Merchant Marine and Island Policy. It found serious doubts on the independence of the bodies in properly conducting the investigation, not only because of the existence of hierarchical and institutional links between the entities responsible for them and the persons likely to be implicated, but also because of the actual conduct of the competent prosecutor. Second the court noted that although the maritime court prosecutor's office explicitly requested that the content of the voicemail be recorded and added to the case file, there is no explanation on the lack of action from the authorities into ensuring that the message was duly considered, even though its content was of particular importance for establishing the date of the disputed shipwreck. Then the court reiterated that ‘evidence obtained during forensic examinations plays a crucial role in investigations into allegations of ill-treatment’ and this principle applies to evidence relating to investigations into the cause and time of a person’s death in the context of an allegation of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The court assessed that the forensic investigation report had multiple deficiencies, as for example the fact that all the reports contained the same analysis for all the victims, not taking into account that they were not found in the same place at the same time and that they did not present the same physical characteristics. For all these reasons, the court found that the forensic analysis was not reliable as it was impossible to establish, with any degree of certainty, the time of death of the applicants' relatives for the purpose of determining the date of the disputed shipwreck. Thus, it concluded to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under the procedural limb.

Regarding the substantive aspect, the court first noted the parties had opposite views on the date when the shipwreck took place, aspect which was decisive to establish whether and when the authorities should have known about the immediate and real risk to the lives of the individuals on board of the vessel. In view of all the elements presented by the parties, the court found that the authorities had sufficient information to alert them on the above risk but the authorities did not do everything which could have been reasonably expected of them to ensure protection under Article 2 of the Convention. Thus, the court found a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb.