CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 décembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 103 December 2007 Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany - 77144/01 Decision 11.12.2007 [Section V] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Doctor’s failure to inform applicant that her companion had AIDS: admissible   The applicants are a mother and her two children.   Their companion and father found out in 1992 that he had cancer and AIDS. He informed the first applicant about the cancer but concealed his AIDS infection; he also forbade their family doctor to disclose to anybody that he had developed AIDS. When the first applicant consulted the doctor in January 1993, the doctor did not tell her that her companion had AIDS. In December 1994 the applicants’ companion and father died. Only several months later did the doctor tell the first applicant that her companion had died from AIDS and not – as she had thought until then – from cancer. After a blood test had established that she was HIV-positive, she sued her doctor for damages. The civil courts dismissed her claim. They found that although the doctor was at fault for not informing her, they could not exclude that she had been infected before the doctor knew about her companion’s AIDS infection. Moreover, the courts held that the doctor’s behaviour could not be qualified as a gross error in treatment which, in accordance with domestic case-law, would have entailed a reversal of the burden of proof as to the causal link between the error in treatment and the first applicant’s HIV-infection. The first applicant also unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against the doctor. The children were HIV-negative and were not parties to the proceedings. Admissible under Articles 2 and 6 § 1 (the first applicant’s complaints relating to the civil proceedings).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes