****
### 1. Essence of the Decision
This judgment, delivered by a Committee of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 11 June 2026, concerns four joined applications against Ukraine regarding the deaths of the applicants’ next of kin due to alleged medical negligence. The applicants asserted that the domestic authorities failed to conduct effective criminal investigations into these tragic events, relying on the procedural limb of Article 2 (Right to Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 2 in all four cases, pointing to systemic domestic failures such as excessive delays, loss or destruction of crucial medical evidence, and a general lack of investigative diligence. These procedural shortcomings effectively prevented the national authorities from establishing the precise circumstances of the deaths and holding any responsible medical professionals accountable. Consequently, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay EUR 6,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, alongside specified legal costs.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Comparison with Previous Case-Law
The judgment is systematically structured into the following sections:
* **Introduction and Procedure:** Detailing the introduction of the applications under Article 34 of the Convention and the notification given to the Ukrainian Government.
* **The Law:**
* *Joinder of the Applications:* The Court joined the four applications due to their similar subject matter.
* *Admissibility and Merits under Article 2:* The Court evaluated the complaints under the State’s procedural obligations in the healthcare sector.
* *Application of Article 41:* Addressing just satisfaction (damages and costs).
* **The Appendix:** A comprehensive table detailing the specific facts, domestic proceedings, key issues, and financial awards for each of the four applicants (Sergiy Mykolayovych Kulish, Oleg Oleksandrovych Tsmokalov, Lyudmyla Vasylivna Pereta, and Anatoliy Grygorovych Broznytskyy).
**Main Provisions and Legal Comparisons:**
The decision centers on the **procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention**, which obligates states to set up an effective independent judicial system capable of determining the cause of death of patients under medical care and holding those responsible to account.
In terms of legal evolution, this judgment does not alter the Court’s established jurisprudence but rather reinforces it by applying well-settled principles to a recurring problem in Ukraine. The Court anchored its assessment on the landmark Grand Chamber ruling in *Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal* (2017), which defines the scope of state obligations in healthcare. Furthermore, the Court explicitly compared the shortcomings in these applications to its previous leading judgments against Ukraine, notably *Arskaya v. Ukraine* (2013) and *Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine* (2014). By referencing these and other Committee cases (such as *Marchuk* and *Tretyakova*), the Court emphasized that the domestic authorities continue to repeat the same structural errors, such as failing to conduct timely forensic examinations and allowing criminal liability to expire due to statutes of limitations.
—
### 3. Main Provisions of the Decision Most Important for Practical Use
For journalists, legal practitioners, and human rights advocates, the most critical aspects of this decision lie in the specific, documented failures that the ECHR identified as constituting a violation of the right to life’s procedural safeguards:
* **The Duty to Preserve and Secure Evidence:** In the case of *Kulish*, the Court highlighted that the hospital’s failure to provide medical records and the subsequent alleged destruction of histological samples severely compromised the forensic experts’ ability to evaluate the medical treatment. This establishes that a state’s failure to secure vital medical evidence early in an investigation violates Article 2.
* **The Impact of Undue Delays on Accountability:** In the cases of *Pereta* and *Broznytskyy*, the Court focused heavily on how protracted investigations led to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In *Pereta*, the delay meant that doctors questioned seven years after the event could no longer recall the delivery. In *Broznytskyy*, the proceedings dragged on for over 15 years before being terminated due to time limits. The Court underscores that delays which allow potential wrongdoers to avoid sanctions undermine the deterrent effect of the judicial system.
* **Ineffective Judicial Remittals:** The judgment criticizes the “ping-pong” nature of domestic proceedings, where investigative decisions to terminate cases are repeatedly quashed by courts or prosecutors due to incomplete investigations, yet no real progress is made upon reopening (as seen in the *Tsmokalov* and *Broznytskyy* cases).
* **Victim Status and Participation:** The Court noted the failure of domestic authorities to promptly recognize family members as victims (e.g., *Tsmokalov*, where judicial intervention was required just to grant victim status) and the failure of investigators to address the specific questions and requests submitted by the victims’ representatives during forensic assessments.
