CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2024

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23803/18 Adam METZGIER against Poland lodged on 11 May 2018 communicated on 5 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the treatment of the applicant’s terminally ill daughter, A.M., and the ensuing court proceedings in this respect. At the material time, A.M. was suffering from advanced cancer. In the early hours of 7 July 2010, she was admitted to a hospital in Tarnowskie Góry. She died at 10:56 a.m. Among other things, the applicant alleges that A.M. was not informed of all medical procedures carried out on her, that she was not allowed to go to the toilet, and that her privacy was violated by the presence of interns in her hospital room. He also claims that after A.M.’s death, one of the doctors made hurtful comments towards him. On 29 October 2013 the Gliwice Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicant’s action for damages against the hospital for A.M.’s death, stating that the treatment given had been in accordance with medical standards. On 30 May 2014 the Katowice Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) upheld that judgment. On 3 July 2014 the applicant brought another action against the hospital, seeking damages paid to a charity for the alleged violation of A.M.’s right to die in peace and dignity. On 19 November 2015 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the claim. On 29 December 2016 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 27 November 2017 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) refused to entertain his cassation appeal. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he and his daughter were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the hospital staff. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Alleged violations in respect of A.M.   1.     Does the applicant have locus standi , for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, to lodge the present application in so far as it concerns the alleged violations of the Convention in respect of A.M. (se e Karpylenko v.   Ukraine , no. 15509/12, §§ 103-06, 11 February 2016)?   2.     In the affirmative, has A.M. been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, or has there been a violation of her rights under Article 8 of the Convention? Has there been a violation of these provisions under their procedural limbs? The parties are invited to refer, in particular, to the following allegations made by the applicant:   (a)     neither A.M., nor her family, were properly informed of the treatments she was receiving (see Mayboroda v. Ukraine , no.   14709/07, §§ 51-54, 13 April 2023);   (b)     A.M. was not allowed to go to the toilet and was not promptly catheterised, even though she had received several intravenous drips, which allegedly caused her great discomfort;   (c)     A.M. was being watched by a group of interns, including during her catheterisation, for which she was partially naked, and at the moment of her subsequent death (see mutatis mutandis Konovalova v. Russia , no. 37873/04, §§ 39-50, 9 October 2014).   Alleged violations in respect of the applicant   3.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, including under its procedural limb? The parties are invited to refer, in particular, to the arguments listed in Question 2 above as well as the allegation according to which after A.M.’s death, a doctor told the applicant and his family: “And this will teach you humility.” ( A was to nauczy pokory. ).