CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2021

.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 }   Published on 11 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 69086/14 Tatiana MACHINA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 23 October 2014 communicated on 6 October 2015 and 20 September 2021   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the circumstances of the case, did the Moldovan domestic authorities protect the applicant’s right to life, in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention or, in the alternative, her physical integrity, in compliance with Article 8 of the Convention? Do the Government bear responsibility under the Convention for the applicant’s infection with hepatitis C ( G.N. and Others v. Italy , no. 43134/05, §§ 69-70, 1 December 2009; Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey , no. 54969/09, §§ 82-86, 25   June 2019)?   2.     Could the legal remedies used at domestic level be deemed to have afforded appropriate redress for the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 or Article 8 of the Convention? Has an effective investigation been conducted into the applicant’s complaint? ( Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §   91, ECHR 2004-XII, Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey , no. 54969/09, §§ 90-93, 25 June 2019 and mutatis mutandis, Shchebetov v. Russia, no.   21731/02, §§ 50-58, 10 April 2012)?