Here’s a breakdown of the Zhukov and Zhukova v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention on Human Rights due to an ineffective investigation into the death of the applicants’ daughter. The daughter died shortly after giving birth, and the domestic investigation into potential medical negligence was marred by delays, repeated examinations, and the eventual termination of criminal proceedings due to the statute of limitations. While the applicants received compensation in civil proceedings, the Court emphasized that this did not remedy the shortcomings of the criminal investigation or acknowledge a violation of their rights under Article 2.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case addresses the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicants’ daughter in a public hospital.
* **Background Facts:** Details the medical treatment received by the applicants’ daughter, her death, and the subsequent investigations and legal proceedings.
* **Investigation:** Describes the initial inquiries, the conflicting conclusions of different commissions, and the repeated refusals to initiate criminal proceedings.
* **Criminal Proceedings:** Outlines the progression of the criminal case, including forensic medical examinations and the eventual termination of proceedings due to the statute of limitations.
* **Civil Proceedings:** Details the civil claims lodged by the applicants and the compensation awarded by the domestic courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* The Court found the applications admissible.
* The Court analyzed the case under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, focusing on the effectiveness of the investigation.
* The Court highlighted the delays, repeated examinations, and the termination of criminal proceedings as key shortcomings.
* The Court emphasized that the civil compensation did not remedy the violation of Article 2.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court formally declared the violation of Article 2 and outlined the compensation to be paid by Ukraine.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Prompt and Effective Investigation:** The decision underscores the importance of a prompt and effective investigation in cases of alleged medical negligence, particularly those involving the right to life.
* **Shortcomings in Investigation:** The Court highlights specific shortcomings that can render an investigation ineffective, such as undue delays, repeated examinations without clear justification, and the termination of proceedings on technical grounds without addressing the core issues.
* **Victim Status:** The decision clarifies that compensation awarded in civil proceedings does not automatically deprive applicants of their victim status if the underlying violations of the Convention have not been acknowledged and remedied.
* **Cumulative Assessment:** The Court emphasizes the need to assess the cumulative effect of domestic legal proceedings to determine whether they meet the standards of Article 2.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
