CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 10 December 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 41468/13 Iryna Ivanivna VOLKOVA against Ukraine lodged on 12 June 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations concerning the death of her son K. who had contracted tuberculosis while in detention and was not provided with adequate treatment for the above disease and for diabetes which he had acquired before. On 16 December 2009 K. was released on parole from serving a criminal sentence and on 18 December 2010, while at liberty, he died of tuberculosis. The applicant’s claim for damages brought against the penal authorities was rejected by the domestic courts; the final decision was taken on 8 January 2013 by the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters. Referring to Article 2 (raised in substance) and Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her son was not provided with adequate medical treatment of tuberculosis while in detention which led to his death, and that the domestic courts failed to properly examine her claim for damages.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 2 of the Convention applicable in the present case? In particular, was there any connection between the death of the applicant’s son and his medical treatment while in detention?   Assuming Article 2 to be applicable, has the applicant’s son’s right to life been violated in the present case?   In particular, did the authorities do all that could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent the risk of the applicant’s son’s death?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, did the domestic authorities comply with their obligations under Article 2 of the Convention?