CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 25 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15524/13 Oleg Oleksandrovych TSMOKALOV against Ukraine lodged on 19 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an error of the applicant’s diagnosis and, as a consequence, an inappropriate medical treatment which took place in state hospitals in 2001 and 2002 and caused considerable deterioration to the applicant’s health. The applicant also alleges that on a number of occasions during his medical treatment he had been exposed undressed to medical students and medical staff. He maintains that the amount of compensation awarded to him concerned the fact of the medical negligence only and was very low (about 965 euros at the time). The applicant further complains of the excessive length of the compensation proceedings, which were commenced in August 2004 and ended in September 2012, and alleges that the compensation awarded to him by the domestic court has not been paid to him by the defendants. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the compensation proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the failure of the respondent state hospitals to comply with the judgment of 16 January 2012 by the Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal, given in the applicant’s favour, compatible with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34, in view of the level of compensation awarded, the length of the compensation proceedings and the alleged failure to enforce the judgment awarding damage to the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Akopyan v. Ukraine , no. 12317/06, 5 June 2014)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, in view of the alleged error of diagnosis and inappropriate treatment by state medical institutions?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of his allegations of being exposed unclothed to medical students and medical staff during his medical treatment in 2001 and 2002?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?