CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43257/20 Tamāra KRĒSLIŅA against Latvia lodged on 16 September 2020 communicated on 11 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the removal of the applicant’s adult son’s organs for transplantation purposes. On 11 February 2015 the applicant’s adult son died in a public hospital in Riga as a result of serious injuries. The applicant subsequently discovered that her son’s kidneys and spleen had been removed immediately after his death without her knowledge or consent. By a final decision of 18 March 2020 her complaint to the prosecutor’s office was dismissed on the grounds that the organs had been removed in accordance with domestic law. Medical practitioners were not obliged to inform close relatives of possible organ removal and exercise of their rights as established under domestic law. The applicant alleges a breach of the right to have respect for her private and/or family life under Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be the victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, in the circumstances of the present case?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the removal of her son’s organs in the absence of his prior consent or that of the applicant herself constitute an interference with her right to respect for her private and/or family life as protected under Article 8?   3.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Petrova v.   Latvia , no.   4605/05, §§ 90-98, 24   June 2014, and Elberte v.   Latvia , no.   61243/08, §§ 108-17; ECHR 2015)?