CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 2 avril 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   228 2.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ŠILIH v. SLOVENIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 2 April 2008 at 9 a.m. in the case of Šilih v. Slovenia (application no.   71463/01).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicants   Franja and Ivan Šilih are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1940 respectively and live in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia).   Summary of the facts   On 3   May   1993, the applicants’ son, Gregor Šilih, aged 20, went to Slovenj Gradec General Hospital complaining of nausea and itching skin.   On the basis of a diagnosis of urticaria (a type of allergic reaction), M.E. ordered the administration of intravenous injections of a drug containing glucocorticosteroid (Dexamethason) and an antihistaminic (Synopen). Following the injections, Gregor Šilih's condition significantly deteriorated, probably indicating that he was allergic to one or both of the drugs. A diagnosis of anaphylactic shock was made.   He was transferred to intensive care, where he stopped breathing. He was given cardiopulmonary resuscitation and then connected to a respirator. His blood pressure and pulse returned to normal, but he remained in a coma with severe brain damage. He was transferred to Ljubljana Clinical Centre, where he died on 19   May   1993.   On 13   May 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against M.E. for medical negligence, which was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. On 1   August 1994 they lodged a request for the opening of a criminal investigation against M.E. which was ultimately unsuccessful.   In July 1995 the applicants also brought civil proceedings against Slovenj Gradec General Hospital and M.E.   The applicants obtained a medical opinion that myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), considered to be a contributory factor in Gregor Šilih’s death, could have occurred when he was in anaphylactic shock or even later. As a result, on 30   November 1995, they lodged a request to reopen a criminal investigation Their request was granted and, in the course of the investigation, a forensic expert stated that the administration of antihistaminic had led to Gregor Šilih’s allergic reaction. He expressed doubts as to the pre-existence of myocarditis.   On 28   February 1997 the applicants lodged an indictment against M.E. for the criminal offence of “causing death by negligence” but were directed to request additional investigative measures. Several witnesses were examined and a forensic expert concluded that the reason for Gregor Šilih’s death was rather uncertain. The investigation was closed on 3   May 2000.   In August 2000 the applicants complained to the Judicial Council about the length of the criminal proceedings and requested that certain judges involved in the case stand down. Their request was rejected.   The criminal proceedings were discontinued on 18   October   2000 on the ground of insufficient evidence. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully. The applicants also lodged an unsuccessful constitutional appeal and a criminal complaint.   On 25   August   2006 the applicants’ civil claim was rejected, more than 11   years after the proceedings were instituted. The case is currently pending on appeal.   Complaints   The applicants maintain that their son died as a result of medical negligence and complain about the inefficiency of the Slovenian judicial system in establishing liability for his death. They further allege that the legal proceedings were excessively lengthy and that the criminal proceedings were unfair. They rely, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 May 2001.   In its Chamber judgment of 28   June 2007, the Court ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective legal proceedings to establish the cause of and responsibility for the death of the applicants’ son in hospital.   On 27   September 2007 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article   43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 12   November 2007 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech) Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), András Sajó (Hungarian), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgian), judges , Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Tjaša Mihelič , Želja Cilenšek Bončina , Counsel ,   Verena Klemenc , Adviser ;   Applicants :   Bojan Grubar , Counsel ,   Tomaž Žiger , Urban Grubar , Advisers .   Franja and Ivan Šilih will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date [2] .   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.