CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 3 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37962/22 Maria CUSTÓDIA against Portugal lodged on 3 August 2022 communicated on 17 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns investigation proceedings initiated by the applicant on 13 February 2015 with the Prosecutor’s Office of Arouca for medical negligence which occurred during a colonoscopy she underwent at the Hospital of Misericordia in Arouca and which resulted in grave damage to her health. The proceedings were unsuccessful and ended with a judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal of 6 April 2022.   Relying upon Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the proceedings lodged in respect of her allegations of medical malpractice were lengthy and ineffective.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant’s right to private life, and more specifically her right to physical integrity in its procedural aspect, ensured by Article   8 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   In particular, having regard to the procedural protection of the right to private life, were the proceedings lodged by the applicant effective in terms of enabling her to participate in them effectively, and of being thorough, prompt and concluded within a reasonable time (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19   December 2017; Erdinç Kurt and Others v. Turkey , no. 50772/11, §§ 51, 54 ‑ 55, 6   June 2017; Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey , no. 54969/09, §§   82, 86 and 90 ‑ 93, 25   June 2019; and Vilela and Others v. Portugal , no.   63687/14, §§   76 ‑ 79, 23   February 2021)?