CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 1 June 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15297/17 Camelia-Roxana MĂRCIULESCU against Romania lodged on 17 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a criminal complaint for serious bodily injury of her baby lodged by the applicant on 22 April 2009 against the doctors who assisted her when giving birth. The applicant alleged that the doctors’ medical negligence caused her new-born a severe physical and mental disability. After a long suffering the child passed away on 28 June 2016. The case is still pending with the prosecutor’s office. The case raises an issue under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s son’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection for the right to life was the inquiry in the present case by the domestic authorities into the alleged medical malpractice in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see Ioniță v.   Romania , no. 81270/12, 10 January 2017)?