Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.09.2010 «Дело Корогодина (Korogodina) против России» [англ.]

in circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law. However, if the infringement of the right to life or to personal integrity is not caused intentionally, the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case ([see Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], No. 37703/97, § 90, ECHR 2002-VIII]). In the specific sphere of medical negligence the obligation may for instance also be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any responsibility of the doctors concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages and/or for the publication of the decision, to be obtained. Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 51, and [Vo v. France [GC], No. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII]).
195. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. Even where there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities is vital in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 72). The same applies to Article 2 cases concerning medical negligence. The State's obligation under Article 2 of the Convention will not be satisfied if the protection afforded by domestic law exists only in theory: above all, it must also operate effectively in practice and that requires a prompt examination of the case without unnecessary delays (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 53; Lazzarini and Ghiacci v. Italy (dec.), No. 53749/00, 7 November 2002; and [Byrzykowski v. Poland, No. 11562/05, § 117, 27 June 2006]).
196. Lastly, apart from the concern for the respect of the rights inherent in Article 2 of the Convention in each individual case, more general considerations also call for a prompt examination of cases concerning death in a hospital setting. Knowledge of the facts and of possible errors committed in the course of medical care are essential to enable the institutions concerned and medical staff to remedy the potential deficiencies and prevent similar errors. The prompt examination of such cases is therefore important for the safety of users of all health services (see Byrzykowski, cited above, § 117)."
53. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the Russian legal system affords a possibility to initiate a criminal investigation and/or to bring a civil action for damages in a civil court in order to determine the cause of death of a patient in the care of the medical profession and to make those responsible accountable. Furthermore, the law provides for disciplinary and administrative liability of medical professionals (see paragraph 43 - 47 above). The Court is, therefore, satisfied that Russian legislation sets forth a sufficient legal framework offering remedies which, in theory, meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. It is, however, necessary for the proper assessment of the applicant's complaint to ascertain whether or not those remedies operated effectively in practice.
54. In this connection, the Court observes that the applicant used two legal remedies with the aim of elucidating the circumstances of her son's death in hospital. She asked the local prosecutor's office to open a criminal investigation. Subsequently, she instituted civil proceedings for compensation of damage.
55. As regards the criminal proceedings, the applicant lodged an initial complaint with the prosecutor's office on 24 November 2000. Following the inquiry into the matter, the complaint was dismissed on 6 March

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9