CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 November 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43898/19 Andriy Yuriyovych GAZIN against Ukraine lodged on 10 August 2019 communicated on 14 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged act of medical malpractice, which took place during a bladder catheterisation procedure performed on the applicant on 4 August 2012 at a municipal clinic No. 4 in Dnipro. Owing to the ensuing complications, the applicant developed multiple bladder and urinary tract disorders. Following the applicant’s complaint, on 6 June 2013 the police launched a criminal investigation, during which Dr. P., who performed the bladder catheterisation on the applicant, was charged with a criminal offence under Section 140 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (negligence by a healthcare professional). Within the framework of these criminal proceedings, in November 2016 the applicant brought a civil claim seeking compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In December 2016 the case of P. went to trial. According to the available information, the proceedings are still ongoing. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings in respect of his allegations of medical malpractice have been lengthy and ineffective. This complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the length of the domestic medical malpractice proceedings, did the applicant have access to a procedure capable of establishing the relevant facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing him with appropriate redress (see Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 137-39, 31 January 2019; Eryiğit v.   Turkey , no.   18356/11, §§ 49-52, 10 April 2018; Botoyan v.   Armenia , no. 5766/17, §§ 90-92, 106-09, 8 February 2022)?