CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59413/17 Kristina RUŠIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 10 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2005 the applicant initiated a lawsuit against a hospital for her mother’s death and asked to be awarded in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. Her claim was finally dismissed in 2013 by the Supreme Court. The applicant lodged a claim regarding the length of proceedings because those proceedings had lasted for eight years and asked for compensation. The court of first instance awarded the applicant 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and acknowledged that the proceedings had been lengthy. The Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court stated that the length of proceedings could be justified by the nature of the case, the necessity to ask for two expert reports or to suspend the examination of the case because of the death of the participants to the proceedings and actions by the applicant herself. The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as not raising important legal issues on 18 May 2017. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the court proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in view of the fact that the applicant had not been awarded compensation for the length of proceedings. In particular, can the remedy used by the applicant still be considered effective within the meaning of that Article (see Savickas and Others v.   Lithuania (dec.) , nos. 66365/09 and 5 others, §§ 86-88, 15   October 2013)?