CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 46863/09 Mieczysława BARAŃSKA against Poland lodged on 24 August 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Mieczysława Barańska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Busko Zdrój. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s daughter E. suffered from schizophrenia since approximately 1998. She was hospitalised on many occasions. In March 2008 she was again admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Morawica ( Świętokrzyskie Centrum Psychiatrii) and discharged approximately ten days later. On 16 March 2008 she was admitted to that hospital again. She was placed in a ward which was divided into two parts, for aggressive patients and for non ‑ aggressive ones. She was placed in the part for non ‑ aggressive patients. During the night of 16 March 2008, at 4 a.m. approximately, she tried to commit suicide by hanging in the bathroom of the ward. She used torn sheets from her bed. Nurse V.K. found her in the bathroom and cut her down. E. was immediately resuscitated by three nurses on duty: V.K., T. N. and L.G. The doctor who was on duty that night was alerted immediately and participated in the resuscitation. At 7 a.m. an ambulance took her to the hospital in Kielce. She was placed in the intensive care unit for further treatment. On 17 March 2008 the local police instituted investigation into the circumstances of the accident. The applicant was questioned on 18 March 2008. She stated that E. had been diagnosed with schizophrenia ten years before. She had been admitted on numerous occasions to Morawica hospital. The applicant had been informed that an official note had been prepared to the effect that E. had hanged herself on a rope made of torn sheets from her hospital bed using the bars of the bathroom window. As the bars were on the outside, the applicant was of the view that it was difficult to understand how E. could have had access to them. She was of the view that the staff had failed to exercise their duty to supervise the patients properly, in particular as it seemed that during the critical night the patients of the ward where E. had been placed had been left with no supervision because the nurses were busy dealing with an aggressive patient. E’s death could also have been caused by acts of third parties. Nurse V.K. was questioned on 19 March 2008. She stated that she was on duty the critical night together with nurses L.G. and T.N. Around 4 a.m. one of the patients had started to behave aggressively. V.K. requested other nurses to help her overpower that patient and take her to the isolation room. She had been with that patient where she had heard nurse L.G. cry out. V.K. had run to the bathroom where she saw E. hanging from a torn sheet from the bars outside the window. Nurse L.G. was trying to hold her up. Together they untied E. and started to resuscitate her. T.N. had alerted the doctor on duty and resuscitation continued until arrival of the ambulance from the Regional Hospital. E.’s heartbeat had been restored before the ambulance arrived. E. had been a patient of the hospital on many occasions; she had never had suicidal tendencies and nothing had indicated that she could try to take her own life. Nurses L.G. and T.N were questioned on 19 March 2008. Their testimony was essentially concordant with the account of facts given by V.K. In addition, T.N. stated that the frames of the windows were so old and in such a state of decay that it was possible to open them easily even without handles. It had already happened before that the patients had been able to open the windows in the bathroom. On 23 April 2008 the police conducted an inspection of the scene. They visited the hospital bathroom and found that the window could be opened only in its upper half. It had bars on the outside. The window had a parapet at 95 cm from the floor and had no handles inside. On 8 May 2008 M.O., a chief physician of the intensive care ward, was questioned. He stated that E. remained in a coma and her status had not improved since she had been brought to the hospital on 17 March 2008. On 16 May 2008 A.K., the chief physician of the psychiatric ward, was questioned. He stated that he had spoken with E. on 16 March 2008 and that she was calm and reasonable and that she presented no suicidal tendencies. On 30 May 2008 the Kielce District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation. This decision read: “Investigation into the circumstances in which E.B. had been exposed to a threat to life or limb had been conducted under the supervision of the Kielce-Zachód District Prosecutor. All witnesses in the case had been questioned. On-the-spot inspection of the place of the suicide attempt had been carried out. As the findings of fact did not allow for a conclusion that the incident had been caused by any acts of third persons, the investigation had been discontinued as a criminal offence punishable under Article 160 para 2 of the Criminal Code had not been committed.” The applicant appealed. She argued that the decision was excessively succinct and failed to demonstrate the facts. In particular, no findings had been made as to whether the hospital staff had failed to comply with their duty of care. It had not been explained how it could have been possible for E. to leave her room, take her sheets with her, go to the bathroom, tear the sheets, open the window and hang herself from the window bars. Only nurses had been questioned who had a vested interest in giving their version of events. No forensic examination of E. had been made to check whether she had any injuries or bruises. In particular, it had not been established whether she had injuries typical for hanging on her neck. The orderly of the ward had not been questioned. On the whole, the contested decision was obviously flawed. On 23 June 2008 the Kielce Zachód District Prosecutor set aside the contested decision. On 15 August 2008 M.O., a doctor who was on duty at the intensive care ward on the critical night, was questioned again as to the circumstances of E.’s admission to the hospital. On 18 August 2008 the Kielce District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation. This decision read: “Investigation into the circumstances in which E.B. had been exposed to a threat to life or limb had been conducted under the supervision of the Kielce-Zachód District Prosecutor. All witnesses in the case had been questioned. On-the-spot inspection of the place of the suicide attempt had been carried out. As the findings of fact did not allow for a conclusion that the incident had been caused by any acts of third persons, the investigation had been discontinued as a criminal offence punishable under Article 160 para 2 of the Criminal Code had not been committed.” The applicant appealed, essentially reiterating the arguments which she had raised in her earlier appeal. In particular, she was of the view that no proper findings of fact had been made in the case. On 19 February 2009 the Kielce District Court, Municipal Division ( Sąd Grodzki ) upheld the contested decision. It was of the view that no one had a case to answer and that it could not be said that the staff had failed in their duty to take appropriate care of E. It further stated that the prosecuting authorities had taken all necessary evidence and examined it carefully. Apparently, as a result of her attempted suicide E. is currently in a coma. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, invoking Article 2 of the Convention, that the authorities failed in their substantive duty to protect her daughter’s life. She tried to commit suicide and her attempt could be carried out because of the insufficient supervision of the patients in the hospital ward and because of insufficient arrangements made in the ward in order to prevent patients from taking their lives. It was possible for her to have access to the window bars which should have been inaccessible, in particular given that it was a ward for psychiatric patients. She further argues that the prosecuting authorities failed in their duty to elucidate the circumstances of the incident. The decisions were exceedingly succinct which did not make it possible to establish liability for her daughter’s suicide attempt.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant’s daughter’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?