CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 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 20 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44530/18 Jasmina MOMČILOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 13 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an instance of alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of the applicant’s mother and the lack of investigation into the incident. The applicant’s mother died of sepsis following brain tumour surgery. The applicant’s criminal complaint against a surgeon is still pending. On 1 March 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal concerning the length of investigation. It would appear that the applicant did not use any civil remedies. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the lack of effective investigation into the death of her mother. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, would a civil claim for damages have been an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision and in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis, mutandis , Bajić v. Croatia , no. 41108/10, §§   72-83, 13 November 2012)? Also, did the applicant invoke before the Constitutional Court, at least in substance, the right on which she now wishes to rely before the Court (see, for example, Vučković and Others v.   Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29   others,   § 72, 25 March 2014)?   2.     Assuming that domestic remedies have been exhausted, has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, for example, Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII, and Bajić v. Croatia , cited above, §§ 87-90), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of the said provision?