CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 16 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 50141/20 Vitaliy Vitaliyovych OSTROLUTSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 5 November 2020 communicated on 28 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns three cardiac surgeries performed on the applicant at a public hospital in Kyiv in July   2014 and January   2015. Although these surgeries were allegedly presented to the applicant as “lifesaving”, he later learned that they had not been medically necessary. Arguing that these allegedly unnecessary surgeries resulted in severe health complications, the applicant instituted civil compensation proceedings against the hospital in September 2017. By a ruling of the first-instance court of 14   July   2023, further upheld on appeal, the applicant’s claim was dismissed. According to the applicant, the domestic courts did not address his key arguments, including a report by the Clinical expert commission of the Ministry of Health (“ Клініко-експертна комісія МОЗ України ”), which confirmed that the surgeries had not been medically justified. Instead, the courts relied on an opinion of other medical experts who reached the opposite conclusion. On 25   April   2024 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible . In parallel, the police opened two criminal investigations into the conduct of the hospital’s medical staff on grounds of alleged medical negligence and abuse of office. The present status of the first investigation is unknown. The second investigation was discontinued on 15   May   2020 for reasons that remain unclear, and the applicant’s attempts to challenge that decision were unsuccessful. Relying on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the criminal and civil proceedings in relation to his allegations of medical malpractice were ineffective due to their excessive length, lack of thoroughness, the Supreme Court’s excessive formalism in dismissing his appeal on points of law, the courts’ reliance on medical experts who allegedly lacked independence, as well as the courts’ failure to provide reasons for rejecting the applicant’s principal arguments. He also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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: - 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   Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey , no. 54969/09, §§   90-93, 25 June 2019; Botoyan v.   Armenia , no.   5766/17, §§ 90-92, 106-09, 8   February 2022)? - Was the length of the domestic proceedings compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v.   Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 219, 19 December 2017; Eryiğit v. Turkey , no. 18356/11, §§ 49-52, 10 April 2018)? - Did the domestic courts adequately respond to the applicant’s pertinent and important arguments (see Reyes Jimenez v. Spain , no. 57020/18, §§ 33, 37-38, 8 March 2022)? - Did the medical experts who carried out the forensic examination relied upon by the domestic courts enjoy both formal and de facto independence from those implicated in the events (see Bajić v.   Croatia , no. 41108/10, §§   95-102, 13   November   2012; Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §   217)? 2.     In respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, does it disclose a violation of the Convention, as claimed by the applicant?