CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juin 2006

.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. 87 June 2006 Byrzykowski v. Poland - 11562/05 Judgment 27.6.2006 [Section IV] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Lack of effective and speedy investigation into the death of the applicant’s wife and the serious damage to his son’s health, following delivery by caesarean section: violation   Facts : In July 1999 the applicant’s 27-year-old wife was about to give birth to their child and was admitted to a hospital. As there was no progress in the delivery and the child showed signs of heart distress, the next day, a decision was taken to perform a caesarean section. The wife was given an epidural, as a result of which she went into a coma. All resuscitation efforts failed. She was subsequently transported to the intensive therapy unit, where she died 19 days later. Their son was born by a caesarean section, suffering from serious health problems, mostly of a neurological character. He requires permanent medical attention. Following a request from the applicant, a police inquiry was opened into his wife’s death on the same day. A post-mortem was carried out promptly. In December 1999 a criminal investigation was started into the suspected offence of manslaughter. Subsequently, the proceedings were stayed, pending the submission of the forensic report, and resumed in October 2000. Afterwards, the investigation was discontinued three times and then resumed on the ground that the evidence gathered so far in the case was incomplete and did not allow for the establishment of the relevant facts. The criminal proceedings are still pending. In 1999 the applicant also requested that disciplinary proceedings be brought in connection with the case. Those proceedings were stayed, resumed and then stayed again in April 2005. The relevant medical court found that the three-year time-limit for seeking the disciplinary liability of the doctor concerned had elapsed but also stated that, as the criminal investigations were still pending, the time-limit could be prolonged. The disciplinary proceedings are still pending. In July 2002 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against the hospital. In April 2003 those proceedings were stayed, pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The applicant’s subsequent efforts to have the proceedings resumed failed. Law : The Court noted that three sets of proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention had been and were pending for periods ranging from four to almost seven years and that the applicant had used all the remedies available to him concerning the alleged medical malpractice. His complaint was therefore admissible. The Court found no indication that there had been any failure on the part of the State to provide a procedure whereby criminal, disciplinary or civil responsibility could be established. The initial measures to establish the facts of the case were taken promptly. Later on, however, the criminal investigations considerably slowed down. The investigations were discontinued three times and subsequently resumed in the light of shortcomings in the taking of evidence. The authorities examining the applicant’s appeals against the decisions to discontinue them repeatedly noted the failure of the lower authorities to elucidate all the relevant circumstances. The Court considered that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination was usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower authorities, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings disclosed a serious deficiency in the operation of the judicial system. As regards the disciplinary proceedings, the Court noted that they were still pending and that it was unclear from the medical court’s decision whether the time limit had been or just could have been prolonged, which left the applicant in a state of further uncertainty. To sum up, after almost seven years, there had been no final decision in any of the proceedings brought to establish the liability of those responsible for the death of the applicant’s wife or those dealing with the birth of his son. Although the Court accepted that the medical questions involved in the case might have been of some complexity, it did not find that that could justify the overall length of the investigation. Further, the authorities had repeatedly referred to the other sets of pending proceedings as a justification for staying them or for refusing to resume them. The Court appreciated that such decisions could have been dictated by reasonable considerations related to the fair and efficient administration of justice. However, having regard to the overall length of the period which had elapsed since the death of the applicant’s wife and also to the fact that the procedures instituted with a view to establishing the circumstances of her death seemed rather to have hindered the overall progress in the proceedings, it could not be said that the procedures applied in order to elucidate the allegations of medical malpractice had resulted in an effective examination into the cause of the death of the applicant’s wife. The Court also stressed the need for a prompt examination of cases concerning death in hospital settings. The knowledge gained and possible errors committed in the course of medical care should be established promptly and disseminated to the medical staff of the institution concerned to prevent the repetition of similar errors and contribute to the safety of users of all health services. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 – 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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