ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Grand Chamber
In the particular context of healthcare it requires the State to ‘make regulations compelling hospitals, whether private or public, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of patients’ lives.’ The Court continued at [107]:
‘The question whether there has been a failure by the State to comply with its above-mentioned regulatory duties calls for a concrete rather than an abstract assessment of any alleged deficiency. The Court’s task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant or the deceased gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above, ss 188). Therefore, the mere fact that the regulatory framework may be deficient in some respects is not sufficient in itself to raise an issue under Article 2 of the Convention. It must be shown to have operated to the patient’s detriment.’
Judges:
Guido Raimondi, President
Citations:
78103/14, [2019] ECHR 106, [2017] ECHR 1174, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1219JUD005608013
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Gardner and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Others Admn 27-Apr-2022
Patient transfer policy was unlawful
The claimants had relatives who died in care homes early in the COVID-19 pandemic. They said that the policy of moving patients from hospitals to care homes without testing had contributed to the deaths, and many others, and had been unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.633638