CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 7 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 729/24 Damijana MARIJON against Slovenia lodged on 27 December 2023 communicated on 20 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who had specific cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities, underwent surgery for a herniated disc at the Th8–Th9 level at the University Hospital in   Ljubljana in 2009. As a result of the operation, she became paraplegic. She initiated civil proceedings against the hospital, seeking compensation for allegedly unlawful conduct, arguing, inter alia , that the hospital had failed to obtain her valid – informed and written – consent prior to the medical intervention. In this regard, the domestic courts found that the doctor had neither provided the applicant with written information about the procedure and associated risks nor obtained her written consent. Nonetheless, the courts held that she had been sufficiently informed of the nature and possible consequences of the intervention. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the applicable legislation clearly required written information and written consent for medical procedures involving significant risks, such as the one in question. However, given the applicant’s particular vulnerabilities, the Supreme Court considered that the oral explanation provided prior to the procedure, combined with her attendance for surgery and her signing of the anaesthesia consent form, constituted valid consent to the procedure. The Constitutional Court, before which the applicant raised arguments that now form the basis of her application to the Court, refused to accept her constitutional complaint for consideration. The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the medical intervention which resulted in her becoming paraplegic was carried out without her informed consent and in the absence of the written procedure required by domestic law. Under Article 14 of the Convention, she also complains that, due to her status as a person with specific cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities, she was deprived of safeguards that are generally applicable to patients in her situation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the absence of written informed consent to the medical intervention in the absence of the written procedure, which resulted in a negative outcome leaving her paraplegic (see, for instance, Csoma v.   Romania , no.   8759/05 , §§ 41-42 and   48, 15 January 2013; Mayboroda v.   Ukraine , no.   14709/07, § 52, 13 April 2023; and Reyes   Jimenez v. Spain , no. 57020/18, §   30, 8 March 2022)?   The parties are invited to comment, in particular, on whether the applicant was duly informed in advance about the nature and foreseeable risks of the medical intervention, and whether she gave valid consent. They are also asked to explain how this issue was addressed in the domestic judicial decisions rendered in the present case.   Furthermore, the parties are requested to provide any relevant instructions and documents concerning informed consent for this type of procedure (such as information and consent forms), as well as any applicable regulations governing exceptions to the requirements of written information and written consent, including the safeguards in place in such cases. Any other documents relevant to this issue should also be submitted.   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?