CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 31 May 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29180/16 Sándor Mihály BODÓ and Tünde HORGOS against Hungary lodged on 13 May 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant was diagnosed with aggressive lung cancer in 2012 and received a surgery shortly thereafter. He requested social allowance for persons with impaired working abilities ( megváltozott munkaképességű személyek ellátása) and was examined by an expert committee in March 2015. However, he has not received the results of this examination so far. In the absence of these results he has not been granted any disability allowance. At the same time, in order to be enabled to receive disability allowance, the applicant terminated his employment. Due to termination of his employment his health insurance coverage terminated in June 2015. Since that date he has not been part of the State’s healthcare system. The applicant’s companion, the second applicant is currently working in two employments for being able to afford the required medical treatments for the first applicant.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the State’s positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1, not only to refrain from the “intentional” taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom , 9   June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III), was the State’s delay in granting any support to the first applicant in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Has the first applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in particular, through the cumulative effects of the first applicant’s situation and the delay of the expert committee in submitting the results of the examination of the first applicant done in March 2015 to the administrative authority so that it could decide on the first applicant’s request for the disability allowance?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article   8   §   2?