CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juillet 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 21 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17105/25 Shorena LOBJHANIDZE against Georgia lodged on 30 May 2025 communicated on 1 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns four dental implant surgeries performed on the applicant at a private medical clinic between April 2017 and September 2018, which allegedly left her in pain and lasting health complications, including facial deformation. On 9 July 2018 the applicant was granted disability status, making her eligible for a disability pension. However, on 7 August 2020 the relevant authorities revoked her disability status, and the decision was subsequently upheld by the national courts. In the meantime, on 27 November 2018 the applicant brought a claim for damages against the clinic and three of its doctors, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, including reimbursement of all future medical, caregiver-related, as well as legal expenses. According to the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance. On 11 February 2019 the applicant also lodged a criminal complaint against the clinic and the doctors for causing less serious harm to health by negligence (Article 124 of the Criminal Code). The relevant criminal proceedings are still ongoing, and to date the applicant has not been granted victim status. The applicant alleges, under Article 8 of the Convention, a violation of her right to respect for her private life, particularly her right to physical and psychological integrity. Relying on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, she further contends that the criminal and civil proceedings concerning her medical malpractice claim have been ineffective, primarily due to their excessive duration and lack of thoroughness, which prevented establishing the responsibility of the clinic and the doctors. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, and in particular her right to physical and psychological integrity, been violated, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In this connection:   - Did the State comply with its positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to put in place an effective regulatory framework in the field of health care for the protection of patients’ physical integrity, encompassing necessary measures to ensure implementation, including supervision and enforcement of the relevant regulations (see, for the recapitulation of the relevant general principles, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no.   56080/13, §§ 186-89, 19 December 2017; Vilela and Others v.   Portugal , no.   63687/14, §§ 73-79, 23 February 2021; and Botoyan v.   Armenia , no.   5766/17, §§ 90-92, 8 February 2022; see also Sarishvili-Bolkvadze v.   Georgia , no. 58240/08, §§ 70-77, 19 July 2018)?   - Did the applicant have access to a procedure capable of establishing the relevant facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing her with appropriate redress (see, for the recapitulation of the relevant general principles, mutatis mutandis, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §§   214 ‑ 21; Erdinç Kurt and Others v. Turkey , no. 50772/11, §§ 54-56, 6   June 2017; and Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey , no. 54969/09, §§   90-93, 25   June 2019; see also Sarishvili-Bolkvadze, cited above, §§ 81-98)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights as guaranteed by Article   6 and/or 8 of the Convention on account of the length of the civil proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above , §   219, and Eryiğit v. Turkey , no. 18356/11, § 49, 10 April 2018?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 6 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?