Communicated on 8 July 2020
Published on 27 July 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 4793/14
Galina Georgiyevna YEVDOKIMOVA
against Russia
lodged on 25 December 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant’s son, Mr A. Yevdokimov, suffered from a severe ulcer disease. On 15 February 2012 he died in prison hospital no. 11 in the Omsk Region. On 22 October 2012 the Sovetskiy District Court of Omsk convicted the head of the hospital surgery unit of criminal negligence entailing the victim’s death (Article 293 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced him to a suspended prison term of two years. On 25 December 2012 the Omsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
On 19 April 2013 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Omsk granted in part the applicant’s civil action against the hospital and awarded her non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 1,000,000 Russian roubles (approximately 25,000 euros at the time). On 26 June 2013 the Omsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal and reduced the award to 100,000 Russian roubles (approximately 2,400 euros at the time).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34? In particular, was the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant at the domestic level adequate and sufficient (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 93, ECHR 2006‑V, and Romokhov v. Russia, no. 4532/04, §§ 90-114, 16 December 2010)?
2. If the applicant can still claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention, and taking into account the findings reached by the domestic courts both in criminal and civil proceedings:
- has there been a violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s son’s death in prison hospital no. 11 in the Omsk Region as a result of inadequate medical treatment (Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 73-103, ECHR 2006‑XV (extracts) and Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 32631/09 and 53799/12, §§ 256 and 266, 27 August 2019?
- have the authorities complied with their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular, by affording the applicant a remedy enabling her to obtain an appropriate civil redress? If not, has there been a violation of the guarantees envisaged by Articles 2, and/or 3 and 13 of the Convention in this respect (Tararieva, cited above, §§ 73-75)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy