CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 août 2025

.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 } Published on 1 September 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27380/23 Tiberiu MATKO against Romania lodged on 29 June 2023 communicated on 12 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s father as a result of an alleged medical negligence and the purported ineffectiveness of the subsequent criminal investigation. It also addresses the alleged lack of informed consent prior to the surgical intervention the applicant’s father underwent. On 25 May 2017 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a doctor at a public hospital for manslaughter. The applicant also claimed that his father’s leg had been amputated without prior consent and that the signature on the consent form had not been that of his father. He joined a civil claim to the criminal complaint. The criminal investigation, initiated on 22 June 2017, was discontinued on several occasions on the grounds that no criminal offence had been committed. However, it was reopened by the investigating judge due to deficiencies in the investigation. The last reopening was ordered on 15 March 2021. On 11 July 2022 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Baia-Mare District Court ordered that new evidence be collected. That included an examination of expert doctors regarding the medical protocol to be followed and the appropriate treatment after the surgery, as well as an examination of another doctor as a witness. Further medical documents were requested from the relevant national authorities and a fresh graphology expert report was commissioned in order to determine whether the signature on the consent form was that of the applicant’s father. According to the information provided by the applicant in September 2024, the criminal investigation is still pending. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention of a breach of his father’s right to life and the lack of an adequate and effective investigation into his father’s death. He also raises concerns about the absence of informed consent prior to the surgery, contesting the authenticity of the signature on the consent form. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings (over seven years) has adversely affected the resolution of his civil claims, which are joined to the criminal case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s father’s right to life guaranteed by Article   2 of the Convention breached in the present case (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v.   Portugal   [GC], no. 56080/13, §§   186-96, 19   December 2017)? In particular, did the applicant’s father give his informed consent to the surgery he underwent (see, mutatis mutandis , Pindo Mulla v. Spain [GC], no.   15541/20, § 138, 17 September 2024)   2.     Have the domestic authorities dealt with the applicant’s case of alleged medical negligence concerning his father’s death in a manner compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention, including the requirement that the proceedings be completed within a reasonable time (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above, §§ 214-21, and Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal   [GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 81 and 137, 29 January 2019)?