Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 71

January 2005

Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.) - 14462/03

Decision 4.1.2005 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Alleged impairment of family life for having to spend own money on medical treatment not provided by State: inadmissible

Article 2

Article 2-1

Life

Alleged inadequacy of State financing of medical treatment, putting the lives of patients at risk and causing them suffering: inadmissible

Facts: The applicants suffer from chronic renal failure and require haemodialysis treatment. They receive such treatment in Chişinău hospital, which they maintain between 1997 and 2004 only provided them with the strictly necessary medication and procedures required for their treatment. They claim that during this period they had to pay for the rest of the necessary medication and that their disability allowance was insufficient to pay for the medication not provided by the hospital. As a result, they allege that they were forced to undergo the treatment with unbearable pain and suffering, and that some of the patients who refused to undergo the procedure because of a lack of money died. They also claim that insufficient State funding of their medical treatment has had a negative impact on their family lives. Some of the patients living in the provinces allege that they were not always reimbursed for their travel expenses to the capital to receive treatment. In 2004, a new law reforming the medical care system entered into force and the situation of the patients considerably improved. The applicants maintain that they had no effective domestic remedy for their problem.

Inadmissible under Article 8: The Court was prepared to assume that this provision was applicable to the applicants’ complaint that having to spend most of their families’ money on their treatment had impaired their family lives. Whilst it was clearly desirable that all individuals had access to a full range of medical treatment, and not underestimating the difficulties apparently encountered by the applicants during the contentious period, they had had access to standard health care before the 2004 reforms, and full medical care thereafter. In the special circumstances, and bearing in mind the wider margin of appreciation of States in cases involving an allocation of limited State resources, the State had not failed to discharge its positive obligations under this provision: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 2: The applicants had failed to adduce evidence that their lives had been put at risk. The fact that a person had died of this disease was not proof in itself that the death had been caused by shortcomings in the medical care system. As regards the State’s positive obligations, the same conclusion as under Article 8 applied: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 13: The applicants had no arguable grievances: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy