CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6375/23 Zhaklina DIMOVSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 26 January 2023 communicated on 18 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant following the death of her nine-year old daughter T.D., whose requests to have a medical operation abroad were dismissed and/or, despite the indications of urgency, allegedly belatedly decided by the relevant authorities. In February 2015 the applicant initiated criminal proceedings against several persons, including the members of medical commissions at two instances, who had initially provided opinions that T.D.’s condition was treatable in the respondent State, as well as against two directors of the Health Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) and the president of the Fund’s executive board, who had at two instances dismissed T.D.’s initial request to be operated abroad. Having lodged an indictment in April 2018, in April 2022 the public prosecutor changed the legal classification of the charges against the members of the medical commissions to less serious charges (which ultimately resulted in their prosecution becoming time-barred) and decided not to prosecute the Fund’s directors or the president of the executive board. The trial court dismissed the indictment. The applicant complains, under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, that the criminal investigation into her daughter’s death was unreasonably long and ineffective resulting in prosecution becoming time-barred. She also complains that she did not have an effective remedy against the protracted conduct of the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the State comply with its procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     did the circumstances of the case require a criminal-law response (see, for example, Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, §§   157-161, 25 June 2019; Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v.   Portugal [GC], no.   56080/13, §§ 214-221 and 232, 19 December 2017; Asiye Genç v. Turkey , no. 24109/07, §§ 73 and 83, 27 January 2015; and Koceski v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   (dec.), no.   41107/07, §§ 20-25, 22   October 2013)? (b)     If so, did the criminal investigation into the applicant’s daughter’s death satisfy the conditions of promptness and adequacy as required under the procedural head of Article 2 (see   Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, §§   164-67; Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §§ 218 and 233; and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 175, 14   April 2015)? Did the ensuing criminal proceedings comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Mocanu and Others v.   Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§   314 ‑ 326 and   346, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Ali and Ayşe Duran v. Turkey , no. 42942/02, §§   61-63, 8 April 2008 ; Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria , no.   55523/00, §§   91 ‑ 96 and 101-103, 26 July 2007; and P.M. v. Bulgaria , no.   49669/07, §§   63-66, 24 January 2012)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of her complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2014; Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 336, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Zavoloka v. Latvia , no. 58447/00, §§ 40-41, 7 July 2009)?