CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .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 } Published on 31 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42069/22 Adriaan ANDREA against the Netherlands lodged on 18 August 2022 communicated on 14 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns alleged medical negligence in relation to the suicide of the applicant’s daughter on 31 August 2018. At the time, she was admitted at a youth care institution for short-term observation and stabilisation. On 22 April 2022 the Arnhem ‑ Leeuwarden Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the care providers were criminally responsible for his daughter’s death. The court found no indication that the care providers had acted with criminal intent or gross (culpable) recklessness and there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction. In reaching these conclusions, it took into account the findings in a report of the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate ( Inspectie Gezondheidszorg en Jeugd ). No appeal lay against this decision. The applicant complains under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to put in place a regulatory framework to protect the life of involuntary inpatients in youth care institutions and failed to take adequate operational measures to prevent the suicide of his daughter. He further complains under the procedural limb of this provision that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his daughter’s death. Relying on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, he complains that he had been denied an effective remedy because the investigation into the incident, including the one conducted by the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate, had not been capable of leading to the identification and punishment or liability of those responsible, and to an award of compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the specific circumstances of the present case, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect life, as required by the substantive limb of Article   2 of the Convention (see, for example, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, §§   104-115, 31   January 2019, with further references)?   2.     Have the authorities conducted an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s daughter, as required by the procedural limb of Article   2 (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no.   56080/13, §§ 214-221, 19 December 2017)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?