CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s3BCCA86F { width:107.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .s487B7E29 { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4CEA72EA { width:33.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4EBB81E5 { width:14.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1AAC640E { width:18.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBDDA8F2D { width:25.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEEAFF8A5 { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF25A604D { width:33.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB21A6DB4 { width:14.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2C1DB02 { width:18.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE0B45D { width:25.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 29 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38342/23 Erna JAKLOVÁ and Others against the Czech Republic lodged on 12 October 2023 communicated on 8 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death from hypothermia of the applicants’ relative, B.J., which occurred in December 2009 after he had unexpectedly left the neurology ward of a public hospital where he was being voluntarily hospitalised following an epileptic seizure; twelve days later, his relatives found him dead in a remote part of the hospital complex. According to the applicants, the hospital was responsible for B.J.’s death on account of its failure to comply with its preventive duty to protect the safety and lives of its patients and to follow its internal directive for dealing with exceptional situations. In November 2011, the applicants lodged a civil action against the hospital seeking non-pecuniary damages. The domestic courts ruled against them, considering that the hospital had not breached any duty since, also according to an expert report, B.J.’s health state did not require any exceptional measures with a view to limiting his freedom of movement or to submitting him to an enhanced supervision, and that, in any event, there had been no causal link between the alleged unlawful conduct of the hospital and B.J.’s death. The applicants’ constitutional appeals was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (decision no. II. ÚS 1037/23 of 7 June 2023, served on 12   June 2023). The applicants complained, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, that the lower courts had failed to address certain pieces of evidence (plaintiffs’ and witness statements) and arguments (breach of the hospital internal directive), and to establish the hospital’s responsibility for B.J.’s death. Relying on Article 13, they asserted that when dismissing their appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court had ignored the lower courts’ shortcomings and had based itself on findings which had not been made by the lower courts, and that the Constitutional Court had failed to duly examine their arguments to that effect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been a violation of Article   2 of the Convention in the present case?   2. In particular, having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, were the proceedings for compensation brought by the applicants following the death of their relative effective, thorough and capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault as well as providing appropriate redress (see, in particular,   Lopes   de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal   [GC], no.   56080/13 , §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017).   3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Erna JAKLOVÁ 1956 Czech Praha 2. Kateřina DOPITOVÁ JAKLOVÁ 1978 Czech Svémyslice 3. Jan JAKL 1982 Czech Skvorec 4. Anežka JAKLOVÁ 2009 Czech Svémyslice