CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, HRISTOZOV and STAYKOVA ‑ PETERMANN against Bulgaria and MISHEVA AND OTHERS against Bulgaria lodged on 15 July 2011 and 5 December 2011 respectively     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES     1.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were they required to seek judicial review of the authorities’ refusal to grant authorisation to use the experimental medicinal product that they wished to have administered, or judicial review of the regulations ( наредба ) preventing the issuing of such authorisation? Would such claims have stood a reasonable prospect of success, either on the basis of domestic ‑ law arguments or arguments based on the direct applicability of the Convention?   2.     Was the refusal of the authorities to give the applicants authorisation to use the experimental medicinal product that they wished to have administered in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (compare and contrast Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000 ‑ V; Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 219, ECHR 2001 ‑ IV; Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002; Pretty v. the United Kingdom , no.   2346/02, §§ 37 ‑ 42, ECHR 2002 ‑ III; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005 ‑ I; and Gheorghe v. Romania (dec.), no.   19215/04, 22 September 2005)? In particular, is the apparently blanket impossibility under Bulgarian law for terminally ill patients to obtain an unlicensed medicinal product by way of “compassionate use” in breach of the State’s duty under Article 2 § 1 to protect their right to life by law?   3.     Did the above ‑ mentioned refusal amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Was the above ‑ mentioned refusal compatible with the State’s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure respect for applicants’ private life (compare and contrast Pretty , cited above, §§ 61 ‑ 78; Glass v. the United Kingdom , no. 61827/00, §§ 70 ‑ 83, ECHR 2004 ‑ II; Tysiąc v. Poland , no. 5410/03, §§ 103-30, ECHR 2007 ‑ I; A, B and C v.   Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, §§ 212 ‑ 68, ECHR 2010 ‑ ...; Haas v.   Switzerland , no. 31322/07, §§ 50 ‑ 61, 20 January 2011; and R.R.   v.   Poland , no. 27617/04, §§ 179 ‑ 214, 26 May 2011)? In particular, does the apparently blanket impossibility under Bulgarian law for terminally ill patients to obtain an unlicensed medicinal product by way of “compassionate use” strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the State’s duty to safeguard the life and health of those within its jurisdiction by regulating access to medicinal products and, on the other hand, the interest of the applicants to obtain access to an experimental product that might be beneficial to them?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?