CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33415/21 Dora ŢĂRNĂ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 16 June 2021 communicated on 16 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the applicant’s civil claim for compensation for damage caused by medical negligence which resulted in her husband’s death. In particular, the domestic courts unanimously convicted a doctor of medical negligence which resulted in the applicant’s husband’s death. However, in respect of the applicant’s civil claim concerning the vicarious liability of the public hospital where the concerned doctor had treated her husband, the first instance court rejected her claims as ill-founded, concluding that only the doctor as the perpetrator could be held responsible. The appellate court ruled in the applicant’s favour, arguing that the hospital was vicariously liable and relying on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on vicarious liability. On 15 December 2020 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment on the civil claim and upheld the conclusions of the first-instance court. The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention about the insufficient reasons provided by the domestic courts when rejecting her claims for compensation against the hospital.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural obligation of the State to protect the right to life ( Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal   [GC], no.   56080/13, §§   214 ‑ 21, and 225, CEDH 2017; Scripnic v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 63789/13, §§ 26-49, 13 April 2021) was the domestic system as a whole, for dealing with the question of the alleged medical malpractice, in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention   ?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons, notably in dismissing the hospital’s vicarious responsibility?