## Facts

- The case concerned events in the UK involving a teacher, Paul Paget-Lewis, who became fixated on a student, Ahmet Osman, and his family.
- Paget-Lewis engaged in surveillance and issued threats against the Osman family, behavior that was reported to the police.
- Despite these reports, the police did not act to prevent escalation.
- Subsequently, Paget-Lewis shot and killed Ahmet's father, Ali Osman, and seriously injured Ahmet Osman.
- The Osman family brought proceedings against the United Kingdom, alleging the police’s failure to protect them from a known threat amounted to a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life).
- The case centered on whether the state's failure to respond constituted a breach of its positive obligations under Article 2.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 2 of the ECHR imposes a positive obligation on states to protect individuals from real and immediate threats to life by private parties.
2. Whether the authorities knew or ought to have known of a genuine and immediate risk to the life of the identified individual.
3. Whether the state’s failure to take reasonable steps in response to the threats amounted to a breach of its obligations under Article 2.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights found that the circumstances required the state to take positive action to protect life when authorities were or should have been aware of a real and immediate threat.
- The Court determined the authorities had prior knowledge of the escalating risk posed by Paget-Lewis, derived from specific reports by the Osman family.
- The state's response to these warnings was held to be inadequate given the seriousness and immediacy of the threat.
- The Court clarified that Article 2 does not impose an absolute duty to prevent every threat to life, but it does require all reasonable steps to avert known risks.
- The Court held that, in this case, the failure to take such steps constituted a violation of Article 2.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 ECHR encompasses a positive obligation requiring states to take appropriate steps to safeguard individuals whose lives are at risk from the acts of third parties.
- This positive obligation arises where authorities knew or ought reasonably to have known of a real and immediate threat to the life of a specific individual.
- The standard (the “Osman threshold”) does not create absolute liability; it obliges reasonable and diligent action in the face of identifiable risks.
- The Osman judgment made clear that the state must assess threats proactively and act preventatively when feasible.
- Subsequent domestic case law, such as Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2008] UKHL 50, reaffirmed the high threshold for imposing liability and clarified that the duty applies to clearly identified threats, not generalized risks.

## Conclusion

Osman v United Kingdom established a clear positive obligation under Article 2 ECHR, requiring states to take reasonable and effective measures to protect individuals from known and immediate risks to life. This principle continues to influence both European and domestic jurisprudence concerning state responsibility for preventative action.

Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245