CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 14 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49933/22 Győzőné KÓTAI against Hungary lodged on 14 October 2022 communicated on 28 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the death of the applicant’s husband as a result of the alleged refusal to provide him with emergency medical assistance. The applicant and her late husband G.K. lived in Csenyéte, which, according to the applicant, is a segregated village populated exclusively by Roma. On 25 January 2020 G.K. felt pressure in his chest and got very sick while at their family home. An ambulance was called at 7.09 p.m. and a team was dispatched a few minutes later, but the ambulance van was instructed not to enter the village and to wait for the police because the site had been dangerous. G.K. died before the ambulance van could reach him. In April 2022 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s subsequent complaint concluding that G.K. had died of natural causes and that it could not be said with absolute certainty that his life would have been saved had he received proper and timely medical care. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed on 16 June 2022. The applicant complains, under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, that her late husband had been denied life ‑ saving emergency medical treatment on account of his Roma ethnic origin and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate his death, or the possible racist prejudice involved. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 2 and 14 thereof, about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of her Convention complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s husband’s right to life, guaranteed by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did the respondent State violate its positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention by denying the applicant’s husband emergency medical treatment which resulted in his death (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no.   56080/13, §§   186-96, 19   December 2017; Asiye Genç v.   Turkey , no.   24109/07, §§ 65-87, 27 January 2015; and Mehmet Şentürk and   Bekir   Şentürk v. Turkey , no. 13423/09, §§ 85-97, ECHR 2013)?   2.     If so, was the denial of medical care to the applicant’s husband due to his Roma ethnic origin, in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Lopes   de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §§   214-21), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   4.     Were the possible racist motives of the alleged denial of the medical care investigated, as required under Article 14 in conjunction with Article   2 of the Convention (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.   43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 160-68, ECHR 2005-VII)?   5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 2 of the Convention taken alone and/or in conjunction with Article 14 thereof, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?