CASE OF MAISURADZE v. GEORGIA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF MAISURADZE v. GEORGIA

(Application no. 44973/09)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 December 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Maisuradze v. Georgia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

André Potocki, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 44973/09) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Georgian national, Ms Rusiko Maisuradze (“the applicant”), on 27 July 2009.

2. The applicant was represented by Ms T. Abazadze, Ms N. Jomarjidze and Ms T. Dekanosidze, lawyers of the of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), as well as Mr P. Leach and Ms J. Evans, lawyers of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), based in Tbilisi and London respectively. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.

3. On 7 December 2009 the Government were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Rustavi.

A. Background

5. On 6 May 2007 an investigation was opened into a murder.

6. On 24 May 2007 an identification parade was carried out. The eyewitness to the crime identified the applicant’s son, G.T., as the culprit. The latter was arrested and remanded in custody in Tbilisi Prison no. 5.

7. On 18 February 2008 G.T. was convicted of murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

8. On 23 June 2008 an appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence in full.

9. On 28 January 2009 an appeal on points of law by G.T. was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

B. Medical treatment in prison

10. Between 24 May 2007 and 7 July 2008 G.T. was detained at Tbilisi Prison no. 5 and Gldani Prison no. 8. No medical complaints were raised by G.T. while he was at those facilities, nor has the applicant suggested otherwise.

11. On 7 July 2008 G.T. was placed in Rustavi Prison no. 2.

12. On 1 December 2008 G.T. complained of ill health. He was examined by a duty doctor, who suspected tuberculosis.

13. On 8 December 2008 a sputum test was performed at the laboratory of the National Centre for Tuberculosis and Lung Disease.

14. On 17 December 2008 the sputum test revealed the presence of tuberculosis bacteria, and a susceptibility test regarding first-line drugs for the treatment of tuberculosis was ordered (“the first susceptibility test”). On the same day a doctor from Rustavi Prison no. 2 diagnosed G.T. with tuberculosis, and recommended that he be transferred to a specialist facility.

15. On 21 December 2008 G.T. was placed in the medical unit of Rustavi Prison no. 2 and enrolled in a DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course) programme, the strategy for the detection and treatment of tuberculosis recommended by the World Health Organization. He started receiving conventional, first-line anti-tuberculosis drugs pending the outcome of the first susceptibility test. The programme in question operated at Rustavi Prison no. 2 between 21 December 2008 and 29 January 2009.

16. On 21 January 2009 a doctor noted in G.T.’s medical file that his state of health remained serious despite the treatment, and recommended that he be transferred to a specialist medical establishment.

17. On 29 January 2009 G.T. was placed in a facility in Ksani for prisoners with tuberculosis. The medical note made on that date refers to his tuberculosis as being “multidrug-resistant”, and describes his overall condition as “serious.” G.T. continued to have treatment under the DOTS programme.

18. On 24 February 2009 the results of the first susceptibility test showed that G.T. was resistant to the first-line drugs for the treatment of tuberculosis. Therefore, a second susceptibility test was ordered in respect of the second-line drugs for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (“the second susceptibility test”).

19. On 26 February 2009 G.T. was transferred to the prison hospital in view of a further deterioration in his health. The medical records relating to his time at that facility show that he was suffering from cachexia, and from early March 2009 onwards he complained that he was unable to walk. He continued to receive the previously prescribed anti-tuberculosis treatment with the first-line drugs pending the results of the second susceptibility test.

20. On 10 April 2009 the results of the second susceptibility test were received by the prison hospital, and they demonstrated that the disease was responding to all but one drug out of the second-line drugs.

21. On 24 April 2009 it was decided that G.T. should be enrolled in the DOTS+ programme for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

22. On 4 May 2009 G.T. started the prescribed treatment.

23. On 19 May 2009 G.T. died of a massive pulmonary haemorrhage.

C. Investigation into G.T.’s death

24. On 19 May 2009 the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Prisons opened a preliminary investigation into premeditated murder. On the same day, a forensic medical examination was carried out to determine the exact cause of G.T.’s death, which confirmed that he had died of a massive pulmonary haemorrhage, a fatal complication of the disease.

25. The investigating authorities questioned the chief doctor of Rustavi Prison no. 2, a doctor from the Ksani facility for prisoners with tuberculosis, and a doctor from the prison hospital. They stated that G.T.’s treatment under the DOTS programme had been adequate.

26. On 13 October 2009 the investigator in charge of the case refused to grant the applicant victim status. He noted that no crime had been committed, as G.T. had died of a natural complication of his tuberculosis. The applicant appealed.

27. On 19 November 2009 a prosecutor from the Chief Prosecutor’s Office who was supervising the investigations carried out by the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Prisons forwarded the applicant’s appeal against the investigator’s refusal to grant her victim status to the director of that department, “for an appropriate response”.

28. On 22 February 2010 the applicant was granted victim status.

29. An undated document signed by the prosecutor instructed the investigator to question experts from the National Centre for Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and obtain records concerning G.T.’s health.

30. On 5 February 2010 two experts from the National Centre for Tuberculosis and Lung Disease were also questioned. They confirmed that G.T.’s treatment under the DOTS programme had been adequate. As regards his involvement in the DOTS+ programme, one of the experts noted that it was only in February and April 2009 that the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis had become possible in the Ksani facility and the prison hospital respectively.

31. On an unspecified date the investigator sent G.T.’s medical file to the State Regulation Agency for Medical Activities to be assessed. The report issued on 21 May 2010 concluded that a massive pulmonary haemorrhage was a possible lethal complication of tuberculosis. It noted that G.T.’s enrolment in the DOTS programme and later in the DOTS+ programme had been in compliance with the national standards on the treatment of tuberculosis.

32. On 4 June 2010 the preliminary investigation was terminated on account of the absence of a crime. The investigator relied on the forensic evidence to conclude that G.T. had died of a natural complication of tuberculosis, and also relied on witness statements confirming that his treatment had been adequate.

33. On 22 July 2010 the Tbilisi City Court allowed an application by the applicant and ordered that the investigation should be reopened in order for G.T.’s sister to be questioned. His sister had allegedly met a doctor at Rustavi Prison no. 2 before G.T.’s official diagnosis and had given him some strong drugs intended for her brother on the basis of an unsigned and undated prescription. That doctor had not been identified or questioned.

34. On an unspecified date the investigation was reopened. It was closed again on 15 October 2010 after G.T.’s sister had been questioned and after a forensic examination of the unsigned and undated prescription had been carried out to identify whether its author was indeed one of the doctors from Rustavi Prison no. 2. As the handwriting examined in the forensic examination did not resemble the handwriting of any of the doctors at the prison in question, the investigator concluded that G.T.’s sister’s allegations were manifestly ill-founded.

II. RELEVANT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

35. The relevant national and international materials concerning the problem of tuberculosis in Georgian prisons at the material time, the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Georgian prisons at the material time, and the World Health Organization Guidelines for the Management of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis are summarised by the Court in the case of Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no. 35254/07, §§ 44‑48, 22 November 2011).

36. At the material time, the management of prisons, including the provision of medical care to prisoners was a responsibility of the Prison Department of the Ministry of Prisons (see Order no. 60 of the Minister of Prisons approving the Regulations of the Prison Department, 24 February 2009). The Prison Department and the Investigative Department were subordinated to the Minister of Prisons (see Order no. 60, cited above, and Order no. 152 of the Minister of Prisons approving the Regulations of the Investigative Department, 16 April 2009).

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

37. The applicant complained that the respondent State had failed to protect her son’s health, physical well-being and life in detention, contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. She also complained that the investigation into his death had been neither adequate nor effective.

38. The Court considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ...”

39. The Government contested that argument.

A. Admissibility

1. The parties’ submissions

40. The Government submitted that the complaint was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as the applicant had failed to request that the relevant authorities transfer her son to the prison hospital.

41. The applicant noted that she had repeatedly requested that G.T. be transferred to a specialist facility, and that such a transfer had been explicitly recommended by a doctor from Rustavi Prison no. 2.

2. The Court’s assessment

42. The Court observes that the gist of the applicant’s complaint concerns the lack of adequate treatment with respect to her son’s multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, his eventual death in the prison hospital, and the subsequent criminal investigation. Therefore, G.T.’s allegedly belated transfer to a specialist facility constitutes but one aspect of the applicant’s complaint. Furthermore, G.T. informed the prison authorities of his health problems on 1 December 2008, and on 17 December 2008 the prison doctor explicitly recommended that he be transferred to a specialist facility (see paragraph 14 above). Therefore, the relevant prison authorities were adequately alerted of G.T.’s health problems and the need to transfer him to a specialist facility.

43. In the light of the foregoing, the Court rejects the Government’s objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies.

44. The Court further notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Nor it is inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

45. The applicant submitted that her son had contracted tuberculosis in prison, that his transfer to a specialist facility had not been effected promptly, and that his diagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and his enrolment in the DOTS+ programme had been belated. She also maintained that the investigation into her son’s death had been carried out by an investigating body of the Ministry of Prisons and had lacked institutional independence. Nor had it been comprehensive, as it had been unduly limited to determining the existence of premeditated murder, rather than medical negligence and misconduct and G.T.’s belated enrolment in the DOTS+ programme.

46. The Government submitted that neither G.T. nor the applicant had ever raised complaints regarding G.T.’s health before 1 December 2008. Nor did the case files provide any indication that G.T. had been infected with tuberculosis in prison. As regards G.T.’s allegedly belated transfer to a specialist facility, the Government relied on medical opinions obtained subsequent to his death confirming that, in view of his enrolment in the DOTS programme on 21 December 2008, it had no longer been necessary to transfer him to a specialist facility, despite the recommendation to that end of 17 December 2008. The Government further maintained that the diagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, the second susceptibility test, and G.T.’s enrolment in the DOTS+ programme had necessitated time and had not been belated.

47. As regards the investigation into G.T.’s death, the Government submitted that the investigation had commenced promptly and had been comprehensive, in view of the numerous investigative measures implemented by the investigator. The investigation’s scope had not been unduly limited, and it had been supervised by a prosecutor from the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, in order to ensure independence and impartiality.

2. The Court’s assessment

48. The general principles relating to a State’s compliance with its obligation to protect life in the context of the death of an inmate as a result of a health problem, and the effectiveness of an ensuing investigation, were summarised in the cases of Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no. 35254/07, §§ 71‑73, 22 November 2011), Tsintsabadze v. Georgia (no. 35403/06, §§ 71‑76, 15 February 2011), and Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49 and 54-55, 27 November 2014).

49. The Court notes that the applicant’s son died in prison from multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. In order to establish whether or not the respondent State complied with its obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must examine whether the relevant domestic authorities did everything reasonably possible, in good faith and in a timely manner, to try to avert the fatal outcome (see Makharadze and Sikharulidze, cited above, § 74, and Ibragimov v. Russia [Committee], no. 26586/08, § 36, 28 November 2017). The Court will further assess whether the respondent State sufficiently accounted for the cause of the applicant’s death in prison (see Tsintsabadze, cited above, § 95).

(a) Whether the State took all reasonable measures to treat the applicant’s son effectively in prison

50. As regards the question of G.T.’s alleged infection with tuberculosis in prison, neither G.T. nor the applicant attempted to bring a civil claim for damages for the alleged infection. The Court previously examined a similar situation and found that a civil claim for damages under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code was the most effective remedy to be used (see Goloshvili v. Georgia, no. 45566/08, § 32, 20 November 2012, and Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 28, 23 April 2013, with further references). However, in the absence of an objection by the Government in that regard, the Court is not in a position to rule, of its own motion, on whether this complaint is inadmissible for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies (see International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 131, 2 June 2016, with further references, and Alimov v. Turkey, no. 14344/13, § 57, 6 September 2016). By contrast, the absence of a complaint regarding the applicant allegedly contracting tuberculosis in prison deprives the Court of an opportunity to rule on the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

51. In any event, the core of the present application is the adequacy of G.T.’s treatment after he was diagnosed with the disease. In that regard, the Court notes that the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis, and its multidrug‑resistant form in particular, was a serious challenge in Georgian prisons at the material time (see Makharadze and Sikharulidze, cited above, §§ 47 and 65-66). It was only in February and April 2009 (in the Ksani facility and the prison hospital respectively) that the treatment of multidrug‑resistant tuberculosis became possible in the prison sector and the first doctor and nurse received adequate training in that respect (see ibid., §§ 65‑66).

52. Against this background, the Court notes that G.T. was diagnosed with tuberculosis on 17 December 2008. As a result, a susceptibility test in relation to first-line medication was ordered. Without waiting for the results of the susceptibility test in relation to first-line medication, the prison’s medical authorities commenced the treatment with first-line medication on 21 December 2008, the date when the DOTS programme became operational at Rustavi Prison no. 2. However, the treatment had no positive effect. G.T. was transferred to a specialist prison facility for inmates with tuberculosis on 29 January 2009. While the medical records drawn up at that facility indicate a sharp deterioration in his health, no adjustment of the treatment strategy was ever considered, and nor was a second susceptibility test regarding second-line treatment. There was no prompt reaction, even when on 24 February 2009 the susceptibility tests confirmed G.T.’s resistance to the standard treatment. It was only then that the second susceptibility test was carried out. While the results were pending, G.T. continued to receive the first-line medication which had been proved to be ineffective.

53. The Court further observes that even though the results of the second susceptibility test were obtained on 10 April 2009, showing that the disease was responding to all but one of the second-line drugs (see paragraph 20 above), the treatment under the DOTS+ programme did not start until 4 May 2009 (see paragraphs 21-22 above), just two weeks before G.T.’s death due to health complications. Therefore, although G.T. was diagnosed with tuberculosis on 17 December 2008, he did not receive effective treatment for the disease for about four months and two weeks. Such a lengthy delay, aggravated by the swift progress of the disease, could not be justified by the late receipt of the results of the drug susceptibility test, which could have been ordered earlier. Nothing prevented the prison medical authorities from ordering a second susceptibility test, especially considering the deterioration in G.T.’s health in spite of the treatment being provided to him, as noted by the health professionals in his medical history in January 2009 (see paragraphs 16-17 above). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicant’s son was deprived of effective medication for a prolonged period of time. It cannot exclude the possibility that the absence of such treatment resulted in irreversible changes in his condition, leading to his death (see Ibragimov, cited above, §§ 39-40).

54. The Court therefore concludes that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect G.T.’s life.

(b) Whether the State has complied with its obligation to ensure an effective investigation

55. At the outset, the Court notes that the applicant’s son died in the prison hospital, a facility under the supervision of the Prison Department of the Ministry of Prisons. In the circumstances of the present case, the main line of inquiry calling for careful and impartial analysis was whether G.T.’s death had been as a result of deficiencies in the treatment he had received in prison and how the prison medical authorities had functioned in this respect. Yet, the investigation opened was in respect of alleged premeditated murder, a crime with a rather high evidentiary threshold. This may have unduly limited the scope of the inquiry, potentially affecting the investigation’s ability to identify possible perpetrators.

56. Furthermore, while the investigation commenced promptly and the investigating authorities obtained forensic and witness evidence (see paragraphs 24-31 above), the main line of inquiry was limited to ascertaining the immediate cause of G.T.’s death and the adequacy of his treatment in general terms. The investigating authorities did not make a genuine attempt to find out whether it had been possible to suspect that the tuberculosis was resistant and perform the second susceptibility test earlier – especially given the persistent and rapid deterioration in G.T.’s health despite treatment, as evidenced by the relevant medical records – or whether it had been possible to adjust the treatment strategy as soon as the ineffectiveness of the standard treatment had become evident. Nor did the authorities inquire into the reasons behind the delay of twenty-four days in starting the treatment under the DOTS+ programme after the prison medical authorities had obtained the results of the second susceptibility test.

57. As regards the independence of the investigation, despite certain degree of involvement on the part of the public prosecutor (see paragraphs 27 and 29 above), all the main investigative measures were implemented by the Investigative Department, and the relevant findings were then endorsed by the public prosecutor. The latter did not undertake any independent steps, except indicating to the investigator that experts were to be questioned and G.T.’s health records obtained (see paragraph 29 above). There are no indications that the prosecutor was prepared to scrutinise the account of the incident provided by the Ministry’s Investigative Department. Against this background, the institutional connection between the investigating authorities and the persons implicated in the incident (see paragraph 36 above) raises doubts as to the independence of the investigation conducted (see Tsintsabadze, cited above, §§ 76 and 78, with further references; Đurđević v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, §§ 88‑90, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Kummer v. the Czech Republic, no. 32133/11, § 83 and 85-86, 25 July 2013).

58. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that the investigation carried out by the relevant authorities into the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son was not in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

59. The applicant complained that her son had not had access to a lawyer during the identification parade on 24 May 2007. She relied on Article 6 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads:

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ...

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ...”

60. The Government submitted that the applicant lacked victim status. In particular, as G.T. had died before the application had been lodged with the Court, the imminently personal character of the complaint rendered it non-transferable to the applicant, who had not been a party to the domestic criminal proceedings concerning the murder.

61. The Court has developed various criteria to determine whether an applicant can be considered to have victim status after the death of the “direct” victim. It normally permits the next of kin to pursue an application provided that he or she has sufficient interest, where the original applicant has died after the application being lodged with the Court (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).

62. However, the situation varies where the direct victim dies before the application is lodged with the Court. In such cases the Court has, with reference to an autonomous interpretation of the concept of “victim”, been prepared to recognise the standing of a relative either when the complaints raised an issue of general interest pertaining to “respect for human rights” (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention) and the applicants as heirs had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application, or on the basis of the direct effect on the applicant’s own rights (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 98, ECHR 2014). In cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has granted victim status to close relatives, allowing them to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family, or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their pecuniary rights. The existence of a general interest which necessitated proceeding with the consideration of the complaints has also been taken into consideration. The applicant’s participation in the domestic proceedings has been found to be only one of several relevant criteria (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 100).

63. In the circumstances of the present case, G.T. died on 19 May 2009 and his mother lodged the present application with the Court on 27 July 2009, more than two months after his death. The domestic criminal proceedings against G.T. which ended on 28 January 2009 and the identification parade (see paragraphs 5-9 above) concerned G.T. exclusively, and the applicant was not a party to those proceedings in any capacity. Nor did she argue that she had somehow been personally affected by the alleged violation. Furthermore, the Court considers that there is no general interest which necessitates proceeding with the consideration of this complaint.

64. As a result, the applicant does not have the requisite standing under Article 34 of the Convention. Therefore, the complaint must be rejected as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

65. The applicant also complained that no effective remedies were available to her in respect of her complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention.

66. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above, and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

67. Having regard to the finding of a violation under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 55-58 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in this case.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

68. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

69. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

70. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive.

71. The Court, making its assessment on an equitable basis, considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 15,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

72. The applicant claimed EUR 3,252 in respect of her representative’s fees for 65.05 hours of work on the case, at EUR 50 per hour. In support of that claim, the applicant submitted a time sheet detailing the number of hours the representative had spent on the case. She also submitted a request in the amount of EUR 115 for postal services, EUR 261 for translation services, and EUR 575 for the services of forensic experts.

73. The Government submitted that the fees were exaggerated. Furthermore, the expenses regarding translation and forensic experts were irrelevant to the outcome of the proceedings before the Court.

74. The Court observes that the applicant did not submit documents showing that she had paid or was under a legal obligation to pay the fees charged by her representative, or that she had incurred the expenses claimed. In the absence of such documents, the Court is not in a position to assess the points mentioned in the previous paragraphs. It therefore finds no basis on which to accept that the costs and expenses claimed by the applicant have actually been incurred by her (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 370-373, 28 November 2017).

75. It follows that the claim must be rejected.

C. Default interest

76. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention both under its substantive and procedural aspects;

3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Milan BlaškoAndré Potocki
Deputy RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy