CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 21 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3316/25 Lidija GIULIATTI BAJŽELJ against Slovenia lodged on 27 January 2025 communicated on 2 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the mother of A.B., who was found dead in his car on 19   August 2019, with the preliminary cause of death indicated as an overdose. The applicant alleges that the police failed to secure key evidence, including shoe and tire prints found in the immediate vicinity of the car, as well as blood stains on the body and inside the vehicle. Despite the applicant’s request a forensic autopsy was not ordered; the standard (sanitary) autopsy listed the cause of death as “unknown”. The toxicology tests’ results were negative for drugs. Furthermore, the applicant submits that A.B.’s phone was not found and that its location data indicated that it was in the broader vicinity of where A.B.’s body was discovered after the presumed time of his death. The applicant’s criminal complaint for manslaughter was dismissed by the public prosecutor on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that such an offence had been committed. The applicant’s request for investigative measures – including the examination of witnesses, forensic analysis of the scene and the car, as well as review of telecommunication data and surveillance footage – was rejected by the Ljubljana District Court on 1   March 2021, citing lack of reasonable suspicion. The court found that in so far as the applicant sought to establish reasonable suspicion of manslaughter through these investigative measures, such a request could only be made by a public prosecutor. Having no other remedy at her disposal, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 24   October 2024. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that, although there was no reasonable suspicion that the offence of manslaughter had been committed, A.B.’s death had nonetheless occurred under suspicious circumstances. It further found that while the investigating authorities might have failed to take all relevant investigative steps, their response to A.B.’s death could not be regarded as inadequate or inconsistent with the procedural obligations related to the right to life. The applicant complains of a violation of Article   2 of the Convention with respect to the alleged ineffective investigation of the circumstances of her son’s death. She alleges that the preliminary police investigation was primarily focused on confirming the hypothesis of an overdose, while failing to secure crucial evidence related to other possible causes of A.B.’s death, including possible involvement of third parties. She also complains about the domestic court’s refusal to take the proposed investigative measures. She further complains under Article   8 of the Convention that, as a result of the ineffective investigation, she still does not know the cause of her son’s death. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life and the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case compliant with Article   2 of the Convention ( see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§   157-68, 25   June 2019)?   In this connection, the parties are invited to comment in particular on the steps taken by the domestic authorities to secure evidence and to investigate the possible involvement of third parties in A.B.’s death. They should also address the position of the domestic courts regarding the avenues available to the deceased’s relatives for requesting that investigative measures be ordered by the domestic court in cases involving suspicious deaths.   2.     Does the applicant’s complaint fall within the ambit of her right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article   8 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention on account of the alleged failure to investigate A.B.’s death?