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 bring criminal proceedings, and to bring a civil action or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the medical practitioners concerned.
Held: Her application was inadmissible. There was no indication that there had been any failure to provide a mechanism whereby the criminal, disciplinary or civil responsibility of persons who might be held answerable could be established. Article 2 obliges the State not only to refrain from ‘intentionally’ causing death but also to take adequate measures to protect life. ‘The Court considers that Article 2 of the Convention imposes that, even in cases such as the present one, in which the deprivation of life was not the result of the use of lethal force by agents of the State but where agents of the State potentially bear responsibility for loss of life, the events in question should be subject to an effective investigation or scrutiny which enables the facts to become known to the public and in particular to the relatives of any victims . . .
In particular, the positive obligations a State has to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention include the requirement for hospitals to have regulations for the protection of their patients’ lives and also 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 procedural element contained in Article 2 of the Convention imposes the minimum requirement that where a State or its agents potentially bear responsibility for loss of life, the events in question should be subject to an effective investigation or scrutiny which enables the facts to become known to the public, and in particular to the relatives of any victims . . .’
Citations:
37602/97
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 2
Citing:
Cited – Erikson v Italy ECHR 26-Oct-1999
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Khan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 10-Oct-2003
The claimant’s child had died as a result of negligence in hospital. The parents had been told the result of police investigation and decision not to prosecute, and the hospital’s own investigation, but had not been sufficiently involved. There . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.186729