CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2025

.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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10629/24 Anatoliy Grygorovych BROZNYTSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 19 March 2024 communicated on 24 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns investigation into the death of the applicant’s son, allegedly in result of medical malpractice. On 24 August 2007 the applicant’s son got into a traffic accident as a passenger of a motorbike, in result of which he sustained severe bodily injuries. He was admitted to the Chemerivtsi District Hospital (“Hospital”), where he died the following night. On 27 August 2007 the investigative authorities instituted criminal proceedings into a violation of the road traffic rules that caused death. Eventually, a driver of the motorbike, M., was found guilty and ordered to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicant. On 18 September 2007, a medical conference was held in the Hospital, where numerous shortcomings in the applicant’s son’s treatment were identified. The Acting Chief Doctor reprimanded six doctors and, in addition, ordered three of them to undergo a professional compliance evaluation. A post-mortem forensic examination stated that the applicant’s son’s death had been caused by the injuries sustained in the accident. However, a subsequent forensic medical examination carried out by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Forensic Bureau on 5 November 2007 found that the death had been caused by defects of the medical treatment. On 3 December 2007 the investigative authorities instituted criminal proceedings into medical negligence of the Hospital’s doctors. In the following years, from 2008 to 2022, several investigative steps were taken, and several forensic medical examinations were carried out, which confirmed the shortcomings in the medical treatment and found that, in the absence of those shortcomings, it could have been possible to prevent the applicant’s son’s death. On numerous occasions, the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings, but all those decisions were quashed either by a supervising prosecutor or by a court. In 2022 the Kamyanets-Podilsk Circuit Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion to terminate the criminal proceedings due to expiration of the statute of limitations. The motion was first rejected, but the Khmelnytskyy Court of Appeal overturned the decision and terminated the proceedings. On 21 November 2023 the decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation into the circumstances of his son’s death was ineffective. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?