CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 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 } .s3262E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#2f2f2f } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5359/23 Natasha PETRAK against North Macedonia lodged on 20 January 2023 communicated on 31 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 27 December 2015 the applicant’s father died in the Bitola State Hospital after it had been established that he had suffered a perforation of the large intestine which led to sepsis. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Bitola Public Prosecutor’s Office against the doctors who had treated her father in the Bitola State Hospital. The prosecution rejected her criminal complaint at two levels finding that the perforation had been caused by a colonoscopy performed at the Skopje State Hospital ten days prior to the death of her father. On 29 August 2017 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Skopje Public Prosecutor’s Office against the doctors that treated her father in the Skopje State Hospital. On 21 January 2022 the prosecution rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint. It held that the perforation of the large intestine and the late detection of the inflammation of the stomach cavity could not be characterised as negligent medical care, application of obviously inappropriate means of medical care or lack of adherence to hygiene measures. The applicant complains, under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, about the alleged failure of the State to effectively investigate her father’s death caused by medical negligence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was a civil action for compensation an effective remedy in the circumstances? The parties are invited to submit any relevant case-law of the domestic courts in support of their submissions.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case capable of satisfying the requirements of an “effective investigation” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law concerning the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-38, 19   December 2017; Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey , no.   13423/09, §§ 81-83; 98-106, ECHR 2013; and Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no.   71463/01, §§ 192-211, 9 April 2009)?