Nataša Rajković against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is on September 3, 2024. year, and on September 26 of the same year announced the decision in the case Nataša Rajković against Serbia, number 34505/16.
It's a decisionbroughto three-member Board.
The case refers to the alleged failure to provide adequate medical assistance to a person deprived of liberty who died while serving a prison sentence in the prison clinic. The applicant complained that her husband's death was caused by medical negligence and a wrong diagnosis. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
Namely, on June 27, 2006, while he was on an approved leave from the Niš Penitentiary where he was serving his prison sentence, the applicant's wife fell ill, after which he was admitted to the Neurology Clinic in Niš, where he spent 20 days. In the discharge list, a control by an ENT specialist was ordered within 30 days. On September 1, 2009, the applicant's husband was referred to a neurologist, but not to an ENT specialist. In the afternoon, after he fell ill again, he was admitted to the prison hospital. During the night, he fell ill again, and in the morning hours of September 2, 2009, he died..
On September 3, 2009, the Institute of Forensic Medicine compiled an autopsy report, according to which the cause of death was respiratory and cardiac arrest due to pneumonia, potentially contributed by a benign tumor of the thoracic gland (a rare tumor that was not detected before death, possibly due to a lack of recognizable symptoms and lack of patient cooperation during examinations). Based on the aforementioned report, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office and the police department in Niš concluded that the death of the applicant's husband was caused by natural causes, and that there was no need to open an investigation.
On October 31, 2012, the Basic Court in Nis rejected the claim of the applicant and her family, concluding that her husband's death was not caused by a doctor's error or omission. This position was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Nis on April 2, 2013
On May 17, 2013, the applicant and her family submitted a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Appellate Court in Nis, considering that the challenged judgment violated the right to a reasoned court decision.
The Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal, judging that the allegations of the applicant and her family, in the context of the circumstances of the case, were clearly unfounded.
COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on June 10, 2016.
She complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) and the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention, because her request for compensation was rejected by by domestic courts.
The court decided to examine the case exclusively with regard to the potential violation of the right to life from Article 2 of the Convention.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court pointed out that the applicant did not claim, nor in any way hint, that her husband was intentionally killed by the doctor who was supposed to take care of him. Taking into account several expert opinions, he concluded that the authorities had done everything that could reasonably be expected, in good faith and in a timely manner, to prevent the death of the applicant's husband, and that there was no causal link between the medical care provided to the applicant's husband and his death.
The court further pointed out that in the case where the violation of the right to life was not done intentionally, the state's obligation to provide protection through the court system is also satisfied by the possibility of civil proceedings.
Since the applicant had at her disposal, and used, the possibility of starting a civil proceeding in which she actively participated by using all procedural rights, and that the domestic courts comprehensively considered her claim and examined in detail the course of her husband's treatment, the Court concluded that a positive obligation state according to Article 2 of the Convention was fulfilled, despite the unfavorable result of the procedure for the applicant.
Taking into account all of the above, the Court declared the petition to be clearly unfounded and rejected it in accordance with Article 35, para. 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.