Communicated on 13 October 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 25364/15 Georgios ARESTEIDOU and Pantelitsa ARESTI against Cyprus lodged on 21 May 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Georgios Aresteidou and Ms Pantelitsa Aresti , are Cypriot nationals, who were born in 1945 and 1954 respectively, and live in Vrysoulles . They are represented before the Court by Ms A. Klaedes , a lawyer practising in Nicosia.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are the parents of Frixos Aresti (“F.A.”), who died at the age of thirty-eight following a car accident which occurred on 12 December 2011.

Following the accident, F.A. was hospitalised with multiple injuries at the Emergency Department of Limassol General Hospital and was then transferred to the Neurosurgical Department of Nicosia General Hospital.

On 2 February 2012 the applicants ’ son was transferred via aeroplane to Germany, to a Medical Centre in Bat Villigen . He died there on 17 February 2012.

On 25 February 2012 his body was repatriated and a post mortem was held on the same day by the Government forensic pathologist. The report established that his death had been caused by a hemorrhagic pulmonary edema during his hospitalisation following a car accident. A post-mortem was also carried out by a forensic pathologist appointed by the deceased ’ s family. The report concluded that the deceased ’ s body was dehydrated and had serious pressure ulcers (stage IV) of a necrotic-infectious-septic nature which had been caused during his hospitalisation in Cyprus following the car accident in which he had been seriously injured. It also stated that in order to reach a conclusion, it was necessary to have a detailed histological examination of the tissue taken during the post-mortem.

On 16 August 2012 the second applicant complained to the Commissioner for Administration of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Ombudsman”) about the treatment she had received by the Ministry of Health in relation to complaints and requests made concerning her son ’ s death. The Ombudsman issued a report on 8 November 2013 in which she found that although she did not have the competence to investigate medical negligence complaints -this fell within the competence of the courts-, there had been serious mal-administration into the applicants ’ complaints; for example, no explanations or information were given to them concerning the investigation into the conditions and cause of death of their son. She also heavily criticised the treatment of the second applicant by the Ministry of Health and the lack of efficient co-operation with the Ombudsman ’ s office.

In the meantime, an inquest was held into F.A. ’ s death before the Famagusta District Court (inquest no. 6/2012).

On 21 March 2014 the Coroner concluded that on the basis of the evidence before him, but without reaching conclusions or making findings as such, there was evidence which gave rise to suspicion of the possible responsibility of a third person for the death of F.A. and that it was probable that possible acts and/or omissions on the part of one or more third parties had contributed to and/or sped up his death. The cause of death was a hemorrhagic pulmonary edema during F.A ’ s hospitalisation following a car accident. The Coroner stated that in view of his conclusions, his findings were to be sent to the Attorney-General ’ s office.

By a letter dated 16 October 2014 the applicants ’ representative requested the Attorney-General, in view of the findings at the death inquest, to proceed with an investigation into the applicants ’ son ’ s death and noted that no steps had been taken since the inquest had been concluded and the referral of the matter to the Attorney-General by the Coroner. The applicants state that they have not received any reply and there has not been a follow-up to the conclusions of the inquest.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention about the death of their son, allegedly caused by medical negligence, and the lack of an investigation by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding and leading to his death.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints of medical negligence , as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? (In particular did the relevant domestic authorities provide for an effective legal venue for establishing any liability on the part of the medical staff and institutions concerned ? (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96 , § 49, ECHR 2002-I)).

2. Was the applicants ’ son ’ s life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case?

3. Has the respondent State complied with its relevant positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in the present case?

The Government are requested to provide details, supported by relevant documentary evidence, concerning the investigation into the applicants ’ son ’ s death. Furthermore, they are requested to submit information as to whether the Attorney-General, who was sent the Coroner ’ s findings, examined the matter and whether he took any steps in this regard. If so, a copy of the documents evidencing such steps should be submitted along with any other relevant information.