The court described part of the state’s obligation under article 2 as including ‘the obligation to establish an effective judicial system for establishing the cause of a death which occurs in hospital and any liability on the part of the medical practitioners concerned.’ The court held the application inadmissible on the ground that the authorities had carried out a thorough investigation into the events and it was open to the applicant to bring an action for negligence against the hospital.
Citations:
37900/97
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 2
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Sieminska v Poland ECHR 29-Mar-2001
The applicant’s husband died in hospital, but she later complained that the ambulance had not been equipped with the necessary resuscitation devices. Under Polish law she had a right to appeal against decisions of the prosecuting authorities not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.235495