CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 63662/17 Marius-Daniel UZEA and others against Romania lodged on 18 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first two applicants are the parents of the minor child Raisa Maria Uzea, who is the third applicant. The application concerns the alleged medical negligence (including dysfunctions at the hospital level) the mother and the child had been subjected to during birth, as a consequence of which the baby was born with severe physical and mental deficiencies; it also concerns the alleged deficiencies of the ensuing criminal investigation launched thereto. By a final judgment of 23 February 2017 (notified on 19 April 2017), the Bucharest Court of Appeal convicted the gynaecologist for having committed involuntary bodily injury. It granted the third applicant pecuniary damage of approximately 40,000 euros (EUR), non-pecuniary damage in an amount of EUR 500,000, as well as a monthly allowance of EUR   1,500. By a final judgment of 19 January 2018 the Slobozia First Instance Court confirmed the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the criminal investigation against the neonatologist, on the ground that the offence was time-barred due to the expiry of the special status of limitation. The second and third applicants claim to be victims of a breach of Article   2 (substantive limb) of the Convention on account of the negligent and deficient treatment they received from respectively the gynaecologist and the neonatologist who had intervened before and after the delivery. All applicants complain under Article 2 (procedural limb). They claim that the domestic authorities failed to promptly and efficiently examine the merits of the case and to establish the criminal responsibility of both doctors involved, in particular by: splitting the proceeding in respect of the gynaecologist, on the one hand, and the neonatologist, on the other hand, decision which unjustifiably prolonged the proceedings; failing to appropriately assess the evidence in the file, including setting aside as pro causa the neonatologist’s statement as a witness; allowing the special status of limitation in respect of the neonatologist’s offence to take effect; refusing to acknowledge the standing as direct victim of the second applicant; refusing to grant any type of damage to the first two applicants, on account of the fact that in accordance with the domestic law the damages were to be granted exclusively to the direct victim of an involuntary bodily injury ( vătămare din culpă ). The latter complaint is reiterated also under Article 8 of the Convention by the first two applicants. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Was the second and the third applicants’ right to life guaranteed by Article   2 of the Convention breached in the present case (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§   186-196, 19   December 2017)? Did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities satisfy the conditions of adequacy and promptness as required under the procedural head of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph   104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII)?   2.     Was the first two applicants’ right to moral and physical integrity, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, breached in the present case? Did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities satisfy the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, in particular in view of the fact that no damage was allowed to the first two applicants on account of their physical and moral suffering?