CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } Published on 15 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54779/22 Mariusz SOCHACKI against Poland lodged on 6 November 2022 communicated on 23 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the failure to carry out an effective and independent investigation into the death of the applicant’s wife in a hospital, on 15   November 2013, after a simple medical procedure. On 18 November 2013 following the applicant’s request, the prosecutor opened an investigation into the offences prescribed by Articles 155 of the Criminal Code (unintentional death). An autopsy and other medical expert opinions were prepared. On 20 September 2018 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against a nurse working in the hospital. In 2021 the nurse died and, consequently, the prosecutor discontinued the investigation. On 20 June 2022 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and finally discontinued the proceedings (served on 16 July 2022). On 26 June 2018 the Warsaw Regional Court examined the applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act on complaint about a breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay. The court allowed the complaint and granted the applicant 4,000 Polish zlotys in compensation (approximately 900 euros). The applicant complains that the investigation into the allegation of medical malpractice was not effective and independent amounting to a breach of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. He refers in particular to the unreasonable length of the proceedings (nine years in total) and, in his view, the incomplete, inconsistent and delayed expert opinions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation and judicial proceedings in the present case by the domestic authorities into the alleged medical malpractice in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII, and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal   [GC], no.   56080/13, §   214, 19   December 2017)?