Here’s a breakdown of the Sinko and Others v. Ukraine decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) due to the ineffectiveness of domestic investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. These deaths allegedly resulted from medical negligence. The Court emphasized that the domestic proceedings were undermined by various shortcomings, preventing the establishment of circumstances surrounding the deaths and identification of responsible parties. The ECtHR joined the applications due to their similar subject matter. While some applicants also raised complaints under the substantive limb of Article 2, these were deemed inadmissible. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and, in some cases, for costs and expenses.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the right to life.
* **Facts:** The judgment refers to the list of applicants and details of their applications in the appended table.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 2:** The core of the judgment focuses on the alleged ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings regarding deaths from medical negligence, examined under the procedural obligations of Article 2.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Additional complaints raised under the substantive limb of Article 2 were deemed inadmissible.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined just satisfaction, awarding sums for non-pecuniary damage and dismissing remaining claims.
* **Decision:** The Court declared the complaints regarding ineffective investigations admissible, found a breach of Article 2, ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts, and dismissed the remaining claims.
* **Appendix:** The appendix contains a list of applications, details of the applicants, background to the cases, key issues, and amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Procedural Obligation under Article 2:** The decision reinforces the State’s duty to conduct effective investigations into deaths potentially caused by medical negligence.
* **Shortcomings in Domestic Proceedings:** The judgment highlights specific failures in the domestic proceedings, such as delays, lack of diligence, failure to establish essential facts, and shortcomings in expert examinations.
* **Consistency with Case Law:** The Court refers to its previous judgments in similar cases against Ukraine, indicating a pattern of violations related to ineffective investigations in medical negligence cases.
* **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for awarding compensation to victims of ineffective investigations into medical negligence cases.
* **Admissibility Criteria:** The judgment clarifies the admissibility criteria for complaints under Article 2, distinguishing between procedural and substantive limbs.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
