CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 19 November 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3853/14 A.V. against Estonia lodged on 7 January 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms A.V., is an Estonian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Tamsalu. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents on file, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s mother E., aged 82, complained about lower back pain. She was diagnosed with radiculitis and hypertension by a general practitioner who also prescribed her medicines. Since the pain did not disappear, E. was hospitalised on 15 April 2013. She underwent X-ray examination and was diagnosed with lumbar spondylosis and osteochondrosis. She was prescribed medicines and nursing care was ensured in Tapa Hospital. While in hospital, she developed gangrene. On 4   May 2013 she died in hospital. According to the notice of death the cause of her death was atherosclerosis with gangrene. The applicant filed an offence report with the prosecutor’s office who refused to initiate criminal proceedings considering that no offence had been committed. On 19 July 2013 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the State Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant also turned to the Expert Panel of Quality of Medical Aid ( Tervishoiuteenuse kvaliteedi ekspertkomisjon ). According to the Expert Panel’s opinion given on 21 November 2013 doubts and accusations that the staff of Tapa Hospital had not given E. the required treatment and nursing care and failed in their duty of care and thereby caused E.’s death were groundless. Nevertheless, the Expert Panel noted that there were certain shortcomings in the documentation of E.’s treatment. It made some recommendations to Tapa Hospital regarding the medical documentation and prevention and cure of pressure sores. It was noted in the Expert Panel’s assessment that the Panel’s assessment created no legal rights or obligations but it could be used as evidence in civil proceedings. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the refusal of the authorities to initiate criminal investigation into her mother’s death. She refers to the shortcomings noted in the assessment by the Expert Panel of Quality of Medical Aid. She also complains under Article 8 about administration of medicines (sedatives) without E.’s or the applicant’s consent.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the extent to which the applicant used civil remedies, has she exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, for complaining about her mother’s medical treatment and death in the hospital?   2.     Having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, was there an effective independent judicial system set up in Estonia so that the cause of death of the applicant’s mother could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see, for example, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no.   32967/96, ECHR 2002 ‑ I; Šilih v.   Slovenia [GC], no.   71463/01, 9   April   2009; and Eugenia Lazăr v.   Romania , no. 32146/05, 16 February 2010)? Was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s and her mother’s right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the medical treatment of the applicant’s mother? In particular, was there a procedure in place for establishing whether the applicant’s mother and/or the applicant gave their informed consent to the applicant’s mother’s treatment such as administration of sedatives? Did the applicant make use of appropriate remedies in this respect?