Communicated on 14 January 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 3148/14 Krystian IWANOWICZ against Poland lodged on 24 December 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Krystian Iwanowicz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1985 and lives in G Å‚ ucho Å‚ azy .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant ’ s mother, Ms G.I., who was born in 1963, suffered from schizophrenia . The applicant was a carer for his mother. Since some time the condition of the applicant ’ s m other started deteriorating. On 25 September 2012 the applicant filed an application with the Prudnik District Court seeking an order for involuntary medical treatment of his mother.

On 28 September 2012 at about 3.20 p.m. the applicant ’ s mother was admitted to the psychiatric ward of the G ł ucho ł azy Hospital.

On the same day at about 5 p.m. the applicant came to the hospital with the personal belongings of his mother. He was told by the hospital staff that his mother was being bathed and asked to leave her belongings.

On 30 September 2012 the applicant received information from the hospital that his mother had died on 28 September 2012. He was shocked by the news.

The death certificate of his mother was drawn up on 4 October 2012 and signed by doctor E.S. It did not specify the exact time of her death. The indicated cause of death was schizophrenia , h ypertrophic cardiomyopathy ( k ardiomiopatia przerostowa ) and sudden cardiac arrest. The hospital carried out a post-mortem.

On 5 October 2012 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Prudnik District Prosecutor ’ s Office. The applicant submitted that his mother had been hospitalised in 2011 in connection with her epilepsy but had not been diagnosed with any other condition. The applicant ’ s mother was never diagnosed or treated for any heart-related condition. Her medical examinations by a GP and the emergency service in the days directly preceding her admission to the hospital did not indicate any irregularities. Between 1 and 3 October 2012 the applicant received contradictory information from the hospital with regard to the circumstances, timing and the cause of his mother ’ s death. The applicant claimed that doctor E.S. who signed the death certificate had been unsure about the cause of death indicated in the certificate.

The investigation into the unintentional homicide (Article 155 of the Criminal Code) was instituted on 8 October 2012.

On 8 October 2012 the District Prosecutor ordered an autopsy and preparation of a forensic opinion in order to determine the cause of death.

On 12 October 2012 an autopsy was carried out. On the basis of the hospital records the forensic expert established that the applicant ’ s mother had been admitted to the hospital on 28 September 2012 at 3.23 p.m. Shortly after she suffered an epileptic seizure and a cardiac arrest. A doctor was called to help at about 4 p.m. The applicant ’ s mother lay unconscious in bed. A resuscitation was carried out first by nurses and then by a doctor. At about 4.30 p.m. the doctor pronounced the applicant ’s mother dead. The forensic expert noted that the post-mortem carried out at the hospital had established that the applicant ’ s mother suffered from, inter alia , a therosclerosis ( mia ż d ż yca t ę tnic ) , h ypertrophic cardiomyopathy and oedema .

The forensic expert concluded that the death of the applicant ’ s mother was caused by respiratory and circulatory failure of unknown origin. He found no grounds to contradict the assumption that the above failure could have resulted from epileptic seizure.

The applicant submitted that the autopsy had been carried out belatedly. He also claimed that the medical records co ncerning his mother contained a number of discrepancies. One example was the statement in the records that “his mother died in the hospital where she had been admitted the previous day”. The hospital post-mortem report mentioned a therosclerosis while the medical records of the applicant ’ s mother did not indicate that s he suffered from this condition. The applicant submitted that there was no mention of the hospital post-mortem in the hospital records and the hospital had not sought his consent for this procedure.

On 16 May 2013 the Prudnik District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation. He found that there had been no grounds for the suspicion that the offence of involuntary homicide h ad been committed (Article 17 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The prosecutor established the following facts . The applicant ’ s mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia twenty-five years ago. In 2011 she was also diagnosed with epilepsy. On 24 September 2012, having regard to his mother worsening condition, the applicant called emergency service to take his mother to the hospital but the personnel of the service refused to do so. Since some time the condition of the applicant ’ s mother deteriorated. She refused to take her medication, become aggressive and started having delusions. The same situation occurred two days later. On 28 September 2012 at about 3.20 p.m. , on the applicant ’ s insistence, the emergency service transported the applicant ’ s mother to the G ł ucho ł azy Hospital. On the same day at about 5 p.m. the applicant brought his mother ’ s personal belongings to the hospital. He was told that his mother was being bathed. On 30 September 2012 the applicant learnt that his mother died two days earlier. It appeared then that his mother was dead at the time when he came to the hospital with her personal belongings.

The prosecutor secured the medical records and the body of the applicant ’ s mother. Having regard to the results of the autopsy, the forensic expert did not establish any other causes for the death than cardiac arrest related to epileptic seizure. He also established that the applicant ’ s mother had some ribs broken. However, she sustained this injury after her death.

The prosecutor noted that the report of the forensic expert clearly indicated the cause of death of the applicant ’ s mother and did not point out to any negligence in the treatment after her admission to the hospital.

The prosecutor heard medical personnel and doctors of the hospital. Those witnesses confirmed that the applicant ’ s mother had been pronounced dead on 28 September 2012 at 4.30 p.m. She was admitted to the hospital at about 3.30 p.m. and then she was bathed and c hanged. After her transfer to a hospital room the applicant ’ s mother started having a seizure. The medical personnel immediately reacted and begun resuscitation. However, the resuscitation was not successful and after about 30 minutes of efforts the applicant ’ s mother was pronounced dead.

The prosecutor attempted to elucidate when the applicant had come to the hospital on the critical day. The hospital employees testified that the applicant had come to the hospital before 4 p.m. Other witnesses, including the applicant asserted that he had come to the hospital at 5 p.m. Having regard to the evidence of a mobile phone traffic, the prosecutor found that the version of the applicant that he had come to the hospital at 5 p.m. when his mother had been already dead was not credible.

In conclusion, the prosecutor discontinued the investigation having found no elements indicating that the treatment of the applicant ’ s mother was in any way inappropriate.

The applicant appealed. He argued that the evidence gathered in the investigation had been insufficient to reach th e contested decision and that a number of the prosecutor ’ s findings had been incorrect.

The applicant submitted that even assuming, as was accepted by the prosecutor, that his mother had died from a cardiac arrest related to epileptic seizure , the prosecutor did not elucidate what had caused the cardiac arrest. His mother was a relatively young person (forty-nine years old). She suffered from schizophrenia but never complained of any other health issues (in particular heart-related) and was never treated for anything else than her psychiatric illness. Prior to her admission to the hospital she had only two epileptic seizures. The applicant also argued that the prosecutor did not elucidate the cause of the broken ribs of his mother. He proposed that a team of experts be appointed in the case to explain the cause of his mother ’ s death.

The applicant argued that from the beginning he had been misled by the hospital and the information received from the hospital had been inaccurate. He asserted that when he came to the hospital on 28 September 2012 at 5 p.m. his mother had been already dead. He was not informed about this fact.

On 27 June 2013 the Prudnik District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the prosecutor ’ s decision.

The court found that the prosecutor had thoroughly examined all circumstances of the case. He had correctly established the facts and assessed the evidence in the case. In its view, the analysis of the evidence did not confirm that the offence of involuntary homicide had been committed. The court agreed with the results of the autopsy and the expert report which clearly concluded that the applicant ’ s mother died as a result of respiratory and cardiac failure. There was no need to prepare another expert opinion since the initial one was comprehensive, diligent and clear. In addition, the prosecutor collected ample evidence in the investigation.

On the basis of the medical records the court found that the applicant ’ s mother had been adequately treated by the medical personnel. It held that the death of the applicant ’ s mother had not resulted from the actions of third parties. The court also found that no offence under Article 162 § 1 of the Criminal Code had been committed ( failure to render assistance to a person in a life-threaten ing situation).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the investigation did not properly elucidate the circumstances concerning the death of his mother.

Q UESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural prote ction of the right to life (see Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 192-196, 9 April 2009) was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?