CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 2026

.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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sC4C4E089 { height:70.45pt } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDB84E884 { height:84.25pt } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s16942762 { height:98.8pt } Published on 27 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31195/22 Laura GRIGORYAN against Armenia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern the death of the applicants’ next-of-kin as a result of an alleged medical negligence and the purported ineffectiveness of the subsequent criminal investigations. In application no. 31195/22 the applicant’s sister, T.G., died on 13   June 2017 in a public hospital specialising in oncology, where she had been operated in February 2017. According to the death certificate, T.G.’s death had resulted from a malignant brain tumor. Further to the applicant’s criminal complaint, on 24 July 2017 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of aggravated medical malpractice. As of 16 June 2022, the date of the introduction of the application, the investigation was still pending. In application no. 6433/23 the applicant’s wife, H.N., died on 18   October 2016 in a public hospital because of postpartum haemorrhage five hours after having given birth. In November 2017, within the framework of the ensuing criminal proceedings, charges for aggravated medical malpractice were brought against D.S., a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist at the same hospital. In March 2018 the case file with a finalised bill of indictment was transmitted to the trial court for examination. On 8 December 2021 the trial court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that D.S.’s prosecution had become time-barred. The applicant’s appeals against that decision were unsuccessful (final decision taken by the Court of Cassation on 22   September 2022). In October 2022 the applicant lodged a civil claim against D.S., the hospital and the Ministry of Finance. According to the information provided by the applicant in March 2026, those proceedings were still pending. In application no. 24890/23 the applicant’s son, A.H., died of a heart attack on 15 November 2012 when making payments in a bank. Earlier that day A.H., who had apparently felt unwell since the night before, had been examined in a private heart clinic by A.S., a junior cardiologist. In November   2013 criminal charges for aggravated medical malpractice were brought against A.S. who had by then (since January 2013) left Armenia settling in Germany. As of April 2023 the criminal proceedings, which had been suspended and reopened several times by then, were still pending. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the criminal proceedings on account of medical malpractice resulting in the death of their next-of-kin were ineffective due to lack of diligence on the part of the authorities and their excessive length. In application no. 31195/22 the applicant also invokes Article 13 in relation to the same complaint. In application no. 6433/23 the applicant also complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his wife died because of serious omissions of health-care professionals. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural obligation to set up an effective and independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017; Botoyan v. Armenia , no. 5766/17, §§ 94 and 106-31, 8 February 2022; and Harutyun Karapetyan v. Armenia , no. 53081/14, §§ 67-79, 29 October 2024), were the proceedings in the cases at hand in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 31195/22 Grigoryan v. Armenia 16/06/2022 Laura GRIGORYAN 1957 Yerevan Armenian Not represented 2. 6433/23 Ghukasyan v. Armenia 19/01/2023 Hamlet GHUKASYAN 1977 Gugark village Armenian Ani CHATINYAN 3. 24890/23 Aslanyan v. Armenia 06/06/2023 Karine ASLANYAN 1955 Yerevan Armenian Samson GALSTYAN