MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY 
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 21–44, April 2020 
https://doi.org/10.18690/mls.13.1.21-44.2020 
© 2020 University of Maribor, University Press 
MEDICAL NEGLIEGENCE AND LIABILITY OF
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE LAW 
Accepted  
3. 2. 2020
Revised 
4. 3. 2020
Published 
24. 4. 2020
JASNA MURGEL 
DOBA, Faculty of Applied Business and Social Studies, Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: 
jasnamurgel7@gmail.com 
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR 
jasnamurgel7@gmail.com 
Keywords 
state’s responsibility, 
the right to health, 
the right to life, 
prohibition of torture, 
the right to private and 
family life. 
Abstract Although the European Convention on Human 
Rights (ECHR) does not explicitly lay down the right to health, 
it can be derived from the long-term jurisprudence of the 
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which interpreted 
certain provisions of the ECHR (in particular articles 
concerning the right to life, the prohibition of torture and 
inhuman conduct and the right to private and family life). 
Based on the ECtHR jurisprudence it may be concluded that 
the ECHR, albeit implicitly, refers to the right to health as well. 
It regulates negative obligations reflected in the prohibition of 
interference with a certain right. It can also be interpreted as 
setting positive obligations of the states to ensure the exercise 
of the right to health, although the extent of that positive 
obligation is still not fully defined. The present contribution 
focuses on a single segment of the right to health in the practice 
of the ECtHR, i.e. the Court’s interpretation of the state’s 
responsibility for medical negligence, especially in the last few 
years. 

22 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
1 Introduction 
 
The following article addresses the case-law of the European Court of Human 
Rights (ECtHR) concerning the responsibility of medical professionals for medical 
error in the context of Contracting States’ responsibility to ensure the right to health 
as an emerging right provided by the European Convention on Human Rights 
(ECHR). In its long-term practice, the ECtHR has dealt with a number of cases 
which concerned the health of persons who have claimed infringements of the 
individual rights laid down in the ECHR.  
 
Although the ECHR does not explicitly regulate the right to health, the ECtHR 
considered the right to health in cases that included alleged violations of the rights 
guaranteed by the ECHR. In some cases, the Court interpreted the ECHR in a way 
that the Contracting States should also provide the right to health care to the 
applicant. Some of these cases concerned the responsibility of medical professionals 
for medical error. In those cases, the ECtHR assessed whether the Contracting State 
party to the ECHR ensured the rights laid down by the ECHR to the applicants. In 
this context, the Court noted that it was also the responsibility of the Contracting 
State to ensure the proper conduct of medical personnel and correlatively, the right 
of their patients to healthcare. In spite of the fact that the ECHR does not regulate 
the direct responsibility of medical personnel for a medical error, it can nevertheless, 
especially in the light of the latest case-law of that Court, be concluded that it 
imposes on the Contracting States a legal obligation to provide its citizens an 
appropriate health system in which medical professionals will be able to provide 
individuals with appropriate medical care, taking into account all the professional 
rules. 
 
This contribution is based on an analysis of international law regulating the right to 
health, in particular the international law adopted within the Council of Europe, and 
on the analysis of the case-law of the ECtHR in which the right to life or the right 
to family and private life was dealt with from a patient's health perspective, especially 
the cases where the responsibility of medical professionals for medical error was 
addressed. Contracting States of the ECHR regulates responsibility of medical 
professionals in their national legal systems. 
  

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
23. 
 
 
2 Medical negligence 
 
Medical malpractice is a legal cause of action that occurs when a medical or health 
care professional deviates from standards in his or her profession, thereby causing 
injury to a patient. In common law jurisdictions, medical malpractice liability is 
normally based on the laws of negligence. In legal theory and practice it is commonly 
accepted that the medical professional does not act as necessary when the 
deterioration of the patient's health is a consequence of the doctor’s professional 
irregular conduct (professional medical malpractice) or where the behaviour of the 
doctor is otherwise impeccable, but the patient has not given an informed consent 
for an intervention due to an unfulfilled or inadequate explanatory duty. How a 
medical professional should treat a patient is determined by the rules of the medical 
profession. These rules do not themselves specifically define what constitutes a 
medical error, but it is clear medical malpractice occurs when a health care provider 
acts or fails to act in a way that does not comply with the rules of the profession and 
the patient suffers harm (Božič Penko, 2017: 69). 
 
The concept of professional medical error does not only cover errors in diagnosis 
and prescribing and the implementation of therapies, but also procedural errors, 
technical errors in the process of treatment, errors in the organization, management 
of medical documentation, etc. The concept of treatment is extremely broad and 
covers all health measures aimed at improving the health status of the patient (Ovčak 
Kos & Božič Penko, 2018: 11-12). 
 
As regards the consequences of medical malpractice, three types of liability have 
been identified: the civil liability leading to the indemnification of the patients for 
their damages, the administrative liability leading to disciplinary or administrative 
penalties for the healthcare professional and the criminal liability which triggers 
criminal sanctions to the healthcare professionals in case of actions qualified as 
offences by the criminal law (Žnidaršić Skubic, 2018: 79-104). 
  

24 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
3 The ECHR and the right to health 
 
The ‘right to health’ was first explicitly stated in the Preamble of the World Health 
Organization (WHO) Constitution in 1946.
1
 Some United Nations human rights 
documents directly address health, such as the right to a standard of living adequate 
for health and well-being, or the need for recognition of the highest attainable 
standard of physical and mental health (McHale, 2010: 282-314). 
 
The ECHR
2
 does not explicitly guarantee a right to healthcare or a right to be 
healthy. Nevertheless, the ECHR does not guarantee the right to health, its 
contribution to the protection in the field of healthcare must not be overlooked. 
The ECHR is central to the European human rights system (Da Lomba, 2014: 149-
164). The rights enshrined in the Convention are civil and political, but the 
Convention applies to socio-economic conditions.
3
 However, it may be said that in 
several recent cases; however, the European Court has etched out a small space 
within the Convention for the right to healthcare, at least in certain circumstances, 
while at the same time setting up fertile ground for further development (Graham, 
2017). 
 
The fact that the right to health is not regulated by the ECHR does not mean that it 
is not an internationally recognised human right. The International Covenant on 
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
4
 obliges the Contracting States to recognize 
everyone’s right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and 
mental health (Article 12, paragraph 1). 
 
Matters such as health, housing, social benefits and other socio-economic rights are 
traditionally more appropriately addressed in instruments such as the European 
Social Charter (ESC) or the European Code of Social Security (Council of Europe, 
2015: 4). The European Social Charter – ESC (revised)
5
 guarantees fundamental 
social and economic rights of all individuals in their daily lives. The ESC (revised) 
                                                      
1
 World Health Organisation, https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf (24 January 2020). 
2
 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series No. 5. 
3
 Airey v. Ireland, Application No. 6289/73, Judgement of 9 October 1979, para. 26. 
4
 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification 
and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Retrieved from: 
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx (24 January 2020). 
5
 European Social Charter (revised), European Treaty Series No. 163. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
25. 
 
 
guarantees fundamental social and economic rights as a counterpart to the ECHR, 
which refers to civil and political rights. The ESC guarantees a broad range of 
everyday human rights related to employment, housing, health, education, social 
protection and welfare.
6
 According to Article 11 of the ESC (revised) states parties 
“with a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to protection of health, 
undertake, either directly or in cooperation with public or private organisations, to 
take appropriate measures designed inter alia: to remove as far as possible the causes 
of ill-health; to provide advisory and educational facilities for the promotion of 
health and the encouragement of individual responsibility in matters of health and 
to prevent as far as possible epidemic, endemic and other diseases, as well as 
accidents.”
7
 
 
The revised European Code of Social Security, which updates and improves the 
provisions of the European Code of Social Security,
8
 defines European norms for 
social security coverage and establishes minimum levels of protection which parties 
must provide in areas such as pensions, unemployment and invalidity benefits, 
medical care etc. The most important improvements in the revised Code are higher 
rates of coverage, an extension of the level and duration of benefits, the inclusion 
of new benefits, relaxation of the conditions of entitlement, coverage for a larger 
number of preventive measures and the absence of all discrimination based on sex.
9
 
Unfortunately, the revised Code has still not entered into force. Nevertheless, its 
revised content is an important indicator of the future developments in the field of 
social welfare, including healthcare. 
 
Within the Council of Europe, the perceived importance of recognizing human 
rights in healthcare is illustrated by the Convention on Human Rights in Biomedicine 
(hereinafter: Convention).
10
 The Convention is the first legally-binding international 
text designed to preserve human dignity, rights and freedoms, through a series of 
                                                      
6
 Council of Europe, The European Social Charter. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-
charter (19 January 2020). 
7
 Up to 19 January 2020 the RESL has been ratified by 27 states members of the Council of Europe. 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/035/signatures?p_auth=2wddtLLB (22 
January 2020). 
8
 European Social Security Code, European Treaty Series No. 48. 
9
 The revised European Code of Social Security updates and improves the provisions of the European Code of 
Social Security, European Treaty Series No. 139. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-
list/-/conventions/treaty/139 (26 January 2020). 
10
 Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application 
of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, European Treaty Series No. 164. 

26 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
principles and prohibitions against the misuse of biological and medical advances. 
The Convention's starting point is that the interests of human beings must come 
before the interests of science or society. It lays down a series of principles and 
prohibitions concerning bioethics, medical research, consent, rights to private life 
and information, organ transplantation, public debate etc.
11
 According to Article 1 
of the Convention its parties are bound to protect the dignity and identity of all 
human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their 
integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application 
of biology and medicine. 
 
4 The “right to health” in the case-law of the European court of 
Human Rights 
 
Although the ECHR does not expressly regulate the right to health, in the case-law 
of the ECtHR relating to Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention the Court 
appeared to accept that in principle this article could extend to the provision of 
health care (Harris, O’Boyle, Bates & Buckley, 2014: 212-213). 
 
In the LCB case
12
 the ECtHR established that according to paragraph 1 of Article 
2 of the ECHR the Contracting State is obliged not only to refrain from the 
intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard 
the lives of those within its jurisdiction. 
 
In the judgment concerning the case Cyprus v Turkey
13
 the ECtHR observed that 
that there may be liability under Article 2 where the state places an individual’s life 
at risk by denying him or her medical care that is available to the general public. But 
the Court did not examine in this case the extent to which Article 2 of the ECHR 
may impose an obligation on a Contracting State to make available a certain standard 
of healthcare.
14
 It is reasonable to infer from the word ‘extent’ that such an 
                                                      
11
 The Convention states the principle according to which a person must give the necessary consent for treatment 
expressly, in advance, except in emergencies, and that such consent may be freely withdrawn at any time. The 
treatment of persons unable to give their consent, such as children and people with mental illnesses, may be 
carried out only if it could produce real and direct benefit to his or her health. See Council of Europe, Treaty 
office, Details of Treaty No. 164. retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-
/conventions/treaty/164 (24 January 2020). 
12
 L.C.B. v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 14/1997/798/1001, Judgement of 9 June 1998. 
13
 Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No. 25781/94, Judgment of 10 May 2001. 
14
 Ibid., paragraph 219. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
27. 
 
 
obligation exists to some undefined degree. Confirmation of such an interpretation 
of Article 2 would extend the guarantee of the right to life in a way that it would be 
in accordance with national healthcare standards in European states and indirectly 
provide a partial, but welcome guarantee of the right to health. The obligation to 
ensure more extensive healthcare is likely to be held to be subject to ‘available 
resources’ (Harris, O’Boyle, Bates & Buckley, 2014: 213). 
 
5 Prohibition of torture (Article 3) 
 
Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is 
stipulated by Article 3 of the ECHR. Article 3, which applies to human beings but 
not to legal persons, contains an absolute guarantee on the rights it protects. This 
right cannot be derogated from in time of war or other public emergency and is 
expressed in unqualified terms meaning that ill-treatment within the terms of Article 
3 is never permitted, even for the highest reasons for public interest (Harris, O’Boyle, 
Bates & Buckley, 2014: 236-237). 
 
In some of the cases the ECtHR dealt with issues involving the right to health in 
connection with prohibition of torture or inhuman treatment. The Court has noted 
that State agents must refrain from treatment which damages a person’s physical 
health (for example, beatings or other forms of violence; Kaçiu and Kotorri v. 
Albania
15
). The State must also refrain from causing mental or psychological harm 
to individuals (for example, the wilful causing of anguish, torment or other forms 
of psychological suffering; Gäfgen v. Germany
16
). Furthermore, the State may also 
be required to take positive measures to protect the physical and mental health of 
individuals, such as prisoners, for whom it assumes special responsibility ((Council 
of Europe, 2015: 5). 
 
The case of P. and S. v. Poland
17
 related to a person’s health because the applicant 
was denied abortion, which constituted a violation of Article 2. A 14-year-old victim 
of rape wished to terminate her pregnancy, but the local public hospitals refused to 
perform an abortion and issued a press release confirming their decision. Thereafter 
the applicant experienced serious pressure from various groups including medical 
                                                      
15
 Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, Application Nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, Judgment of 25 June 2013. 
16
 Gäfgen v. Germany, Application No. 22978/05, Judgment of June 2010 (Grand Chamber). 
17
 P. and S. v. Poland, Application No. 57375/08, Judgment of 30 October 2012. 

28 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
professionals, journalists, a priest and anti-abortion activists. After complaining to 
the Ministry of Health, the applicant was eventually taken in secret for an abortion 
in another hospital some 500 kilometres from her home. The Court noted that, 
despite the applicant’s great vulnerability, a prosecutor’s certificate confirming that 
her pregnancy had resulted from unlawful intercourse and medical evidence that she 
had been subjected to physical force, the applicant had been subjected to 
considerable pressure by various medical professionals not to have an abortion. No 
proper regard had been given to her young age or to her views and feelings. All the 
foregoing led the Court to conclude that there had been a breach of Article 3 of the 
Convention (Council of Europe, 2015: 7). 
 
The question of degrading or inhuman treatment was raised in D. v. the United 
Kingdom, a case involving the removal of an alien dying of AIDS to his country of 
origin (St Kitts). The Court held that because the applicant had no accommodation, 
family, moral or financial support and no access to adequate medical treatment in 
his country, his removal would constitute a violation of Article 3. However, in N. v. 
the United Kingdom the Court found that the expulsion of an HIV patient to 
Uganda, where her access to appropriate medical treatment was uncertain, would 
not amount to a violation of that provision. Similarly, in Bensaid v. the United 
Kingdom the Court held that the expulsion of a schizophrenic would not constitute 
a violation of either Article 3 or Article 8, despite the alleged risk of health 
deterioration due to a lack of adequate care in the country of destination (Council 
of Europe, 2015: 9). 
 
6 The right to liberty and security of the person (Article 8) 
 
Article 8 of the ECHR regulates everyone’s right to respect for his private and family 
life, his home and his correspondence. This article prohibits interference by a public 
authority with the exercise of this right except in limited and defined cases such as 
where the interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic 
society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being 
of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health 
or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 8 has 
been described as “the least defined and the most unruly of the rights enshrined in 
the Convention” because it places on states the obligation to “respect” a wide range 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
29. 
 
 
of undefined personal interests which embrace a number of overlapping and inter-
related areas (Harris, O’Boyle, Bates & Buckley, 2014: 522). 
 
The right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention has 
assumed prominence in the Court’s case-law on “the right to health”. The Court has 
interpreted the notion of private life as covering the right to the protection of one’s 
physical, moral and psychological integrity, as well as the right to choose, or to 
exercise one’s personal autonomy – for example, to refuse medical treatment or to 
request a particular form of medical treatment (Glass v . the United Kingdom, §§ 74-
83; Tysiąc v. Poland) (Council of Europe, 2015: 5). 
 
Article 8 also gives rise to both negative and positive obligations. The Court has 
found States to be under a positive obligation to secure the right to effective respect 
for physical and psychological integrity (Sentges v. the Netherlands; Pentiacova and 
Others v. Moldova; Nitecki v . Poland). In addition, these obligations may require the 
State to take measures to provide effective and accessible protection of the right to 
respect for private life (Airey v. Ireland, § 33; McGinley and Egan v. the United 
Kingdom, § 101; Roche v. the United Kingdom, § 162), through both a regulatory 
framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery and the implementation, 
where appropriate, of specific measures (Tysiąc v. Poland, § 110). The issue of free 
and informed consent to medical treatment has also been a dominant feature of the 
case-law under Article 8 (Council of Europe, 2015: 5). 
 
The case Erdinç Kurt v. Turkey
18
 concerned two high-risk operations performed on 
a patient – the applicants ‘daughter – which left her with severe neurological damage 
(92 percent disability). The applicants maintained that the authorities were 
responsible for the damage in question and complained of the lack of an effective 
remedy by which to assert their rights in the civil proceedings. They alleged that they 
had contested, without success, the relevance and sufficiency of the expert report 
on which the domestic courts had based their dismissal of the applicants’ 
compensation claim. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to 
respect for private life, finding that the applicants had not received an adequate 
judicial response that satisfied the requirements inherent in the protection of the 
right to physical integrity of the patient. It noted that the expert report on which the 
                                                      
18
 Erdinç Kurt v. Turkey, Application No. 50772/11, Judgment of 25 June 2019. 

30 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
domestic courts had based their dismissal of the applicants’ compensation claims, 
and which concluded that the doctors had not been at fault, had given insufficient 
explanations regarding the issue on which it was supposed to provide technical 
insight (the issue whether the doctors had contributed to the damage). The Court 
held that only where it was established that the doctors had carried out the operation 
in accordance with the rules of medical science, taking due account of the risks 
involved, could the damage caused be regarded as an unforeseeable consequence of 
treatment; were it otherwise, surgeons would never be called to account for their 
actions, since any surgical intervention carried a degree of risk. 
 
Although the Court found the case S.A. v. Turkey
19
 inadmissible, it raised important 
issues regarding the right to health. It concerned the applicant’s claim that his son 
had sustained physical harm as a result of an allegedly botched circumcision. The 
applicant complained that his son had sustained physical harm as a result of 
complications from surgery. The Court declared the application inadmissible as 
being manifestly ill-founded, because the Turkish courts’ decision had been neither 
arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable. It noted that the national authorities had 
opened, of their own motion, an internal administrative investigation for disciplinary 
purposes and that, in dismissing the claims of the applicant, the domestic authorities 
had relied on medical assessments. It was not for the Court to call into question the 
doctors’ findings or to speculate as to the nature of the experts’ conclusions. Taking 
the view that it was not appropriate to call into question the facts as established by 
the national authorities or the conclusions reached by them, the Court also found 
that the domestic courts’ decision to dismiss the applicant’s claims had neither been 
arbitrary nor unreasonable. Lastly, the Court noted that the applicant had not taken 
any steps to obtain a medical assessment in support of his allegations. Nor had he 
accepted a second corrective operation as recommended by the doctors. 
 
The Court has also underlined the importance of the patients’ right to be given 
access to information regarding risks to their health. The Contracting States are, for 
example, required to adopt the necessary regulatory measures to ensure that doctors 
consider the foreseeable consequences of a planned medical procedure and inform 
their patients beforehand to enable them to give informed consent. If a foreseeable 
risk materialises without the patient having been duly informed in advance, the State 
                                                      
19
 S.A. v. Turkey, Application No. 62299/09, Judgment of 16 January 2018. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
31. 
 
 
may be found in breach of Article 8 (Trocellier v. France, § 4; Codarcea v. Romania, 
§ 105). Thus, in Csoma v. Romania the applicant was given medication to induce an 
abortion but owing to complications the doctors had to perform a hysterectomy to 
save her life. The Court concluded that because she had not been involved in the 
choice of medical treatment or properly informed of the risks, she had suffered an 
infringement of her right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 (Council 
of Europe, 2015: 7). 
 
7 The right to life (Article 2) 
 
The first right guaranteed by the ECHR, the right to life, is the most basic human 
right of all. This right cannot be derogated from in time of war or another public 
emergency. According to Article 2 of the ECHR everyone’s right to life to life must 
be protected by law. No one must be deprived of his life intentionally save in the 
execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this 
penalty is provided by law. Together with the prohibition of torture it enshrines one 
of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe.
20
 
Deprivation of life will not be regarded as having been inflicted in contravention of 
Article 2 when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely 
necessary: in defence of any person from unlawful violence; in order to effect a 
lawful arrest, to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, or in action lawfully 
taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. 
 
According to Article 2 of the ECHR state agents are obliged to refrain from acts or 
omissions of a life-threatening nature, or which place the health of individuals at 
grave risk. In case İlhan v. Turkey
21
 the applicant alleged that his brother Abdüllatif 
İlhan had been severely beaten by gendarmes when they apprehended him at his 
village and that he was not provided with the necessary medical treatment for his 
life-threatening injuries. Having regard both for the severity of the ill-treatment 
suffered by A. İlhan and the surrounding circumstances, including the significant 
lapse in time before he received proper medical attention, the Court found that he 
was a victim of very serious and cruel suffering that may be characterised also as 
torture. 
                                                      
20
 McCann v. UK, Application No. 18984/91, Judgment of 27 September 1995 (Grand Chamber), para 147. 
21
 İlhan v. Turkey, Application No. 22277/93, Judgment of 27 June 2000. 

32 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
Without Convention-compliant justification, states must not use lethal force or force 
which, while not resulting in death, gives rise to serious injury. States also have 
positive obligations to protect the health of individuals in particular circumstances. 
An issue may thus arise under the same article where it is shown that the authorities 
of a Contracting State have put an individual’s life at risk through the denial of health 
care they have undertaken to make available to the population in general (Cyprus v. 
Turkey,
22
 Nitecki v. Poland,
23
 Oyal v. Turkey) (Council of Europe, 2015: 5). 
 
Cases falling under Article 2 of the ECHR in which the right to health was 
considered may be divided in two major groups. The first group includes cases where 
the Court found inefficiency of procedure and legal remedies. The second group 
consists of cases in which the breach of the rues of medical science may constitute 
a violation of the right to life. Both groups are considered in the next two sections 
of this paper. 
 
8 Inefficiency of (legal) investigation 
 
The State’s obligation to carry out an effective investigation has in the case-law of 
the ECtHR been considered as an obligation inherent in Article 2, which requires, 
inter alia, that the right to life be “protected by law”. Although the failure to comply 
with such an obligation may have consequences for the right protected under Article 
13, the procedural obligation of Article 2 is seen as a distinct obligation that can give 
rise to a finding of a separate and independent “interference”. The Court has 
interpreted the procedural obligation of Article 2 as requiring States to establish an 
effective and independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in 
the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, can 
be determined and those responsible held accountable (Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], § 192; 
Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], § 214) (Council of Europe, 2019: 30). 
 
                                                      
22
 See note 19 above. 
23
 Nitecki v. Poland, Application No. 65653/01, Judgment of 21 March 2002.  
The applicant was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for which he was prescribed a drug used to treat his 
disease. He asked the Kujawsko-Pomorski Health Insurance Fund to refund him the cost of the drug. The funding 
was approved up to 70 percent. The Court found that, bearing in mind the medical treatment and facilities provided 
to the applicant, including a refund of the greater part of the cost of the required drug, the respondent State cannot 
be said, in the special circumstances of the case, to have failed to discharge its obligations under Article 2 by not 
paying the remaining 30 percent of the drug price. Accordingly, the Court, concluded that the complaint under 
Article 2 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
33. 
 
 
In Šilih v . Slovenia
24
 the Court noted that the fact that the applicants' son's condition 
started significantly to deteriorate in the hospital and that his death was possibly 
related to the medical treatment he received had not been disputed either before the 
Court or in the domestic proceedings. It further observed that the applicants alleged 
that their son's death was a result of negligence on the part of the doctor. It follows 
that the State was under a duty to ensure that the proceedings instituted with regard 
to the death complied with the standards imposed by the procedural obligation of 
Article 2 of the ECHR. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 
of the Convention on account of the inefficiency of the Slovenian judicial system 
in establishing the cause of and liability for the death of the applicant’s son. It 
observed that the criminal proceedings, and notably the investigation, had lasted too 
long, and that six judges had been changed in a single set of first-instance civil court 
proceedings, which were still pending 13 years after they had been started. 
 
The choice of means for ensuring the respect for positive obligations under Article 
2 is in principle a matter that falls within the Contracting State’s margin of 
appreciation. There are different avenues for ensuring that Convention rights are 
respected, and even if the State has failed to apply one particular measure provided 
by domestic law, it may still fulfil its positive duty by other means. However, for this 
obligation to be satisfied, such proceedings must not only exist in theory but also 
operate effectively in practice (Cevrioğlu v. Turkey, §§ 53 and 55; Lopes de Sousa 
Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], § 216). Therefore, the Court is called to examine 
whether the available legal remedies, taken together, as provided in law and applied 
in practice, could be said to have constituted legal means capable of establishing the 
facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the 
victim. In other words, rather than assessing the legal regime in abstracto, the Court 
must examine whether the legal system as a whole adequately dealt with the case at 
hand (Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, § 67) (Council of Europe, 2019: 39). 
 
In Dodov v. Bulgaria
25
 the Court dealt with a situation involving lack of 
accountability for the disappearance from a nursing home of the applicant’s mother, 
who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The Court considered it reasonable to 
assume that the mother had died and found a direct link between the failure of the 
                                                      
24
 Šilih v. Slovenia, Application No. 71463/01, Judgment of 9 April 2009 (Grand Chamber). 
25
 Dodov v. Bulgaria, Application No. 59548/00, Judgment of 17 January 2008. 

34 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
nursing home staff to supervise her, despite instructions never to leave her 
unattended, and her unexplained disappearance. Despite the availability in Bulgarian 
law of three avenues of redress – criminal, disciplinary and civil – the authorities 
had not provided the applicant with the means to establish the facts and bring to 
account those responsible. Faced with an arguable case of negligent endangering of 
human life, the Bulgarian legal system as a whole had failed to provide the adequate 
and timely response required by the State’s procedural obligations under Article 2 
(Council of Europe, 2019: 40). 
 
The ECtHR found domestic proceedings were excessively lengthy also in 
Byrzykowski v. Poland,
26
 Zafer Öztürk v. Turkey,
27
 Bilbija and Blažević v. Croatia,
28
 
etc. In cases Bajić v. Croatia
29
 and by contrast Karpisiewicz v. Poland
30
 the medical 
experts’ professional relationship with the accused was such that the medical experts 
could not be seen as objectively impartial (Council of Europe, 2019: 41). 
 
On the other hand, the Court has in many cases found no failure on the part of the 
State to provide appropriate mechanisms whereby the criminal, disciplinary or civil 
responsibility of persons could be established. For instance, in the case of Vo v. 
France,
31
 a doctor performed a medical procedure on the applicant that had been 
intended for another person. The applicant had to terminate her pregnancy as a 
result. Before the Court the applicant complained that the lack of criminal-law 
protection for her unborn child violated Article 2 of the Convention. The Court 
examined the adequacy of the mechanisms in place for proving any negligence by 
the doctor in the loss of the applicant’s child. Noting that the applicant could, with 
reasonable prospects of success, have brought an action in damages against the 
authorities for negligence, it concluded that there had been no failure on the part of 
the respondent State to comply with the requirements relating to the preservation 
of life in the public-health sphere (Council of Europe, 2019: 40). 
 
                                                      
26
 Byrzykowski v. Poland, Application No. 11562/05, Judgment of 27 June 2006. 
27
 Zafer Öztürk v. Turkey, Application No. 25774/09, Judgment of 21 July 2015. 
28
 Bilbija and Blažević v. Croatia, Application No. 62870/13, Judgment of 12 January 2016. 
29
 Bajić v. Croatia, Application No. 41108/10, Judgment of 13 November 2012. 
30
 Karpisiewicz v. Poland, Application No. 14730/09, Judgment of 11 December 2012. 
31
 Vo v. France, Application No. 53924/00, Judgment of 8 July 2004, Grand Chamber. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
35. 
 
 
Similarly, in Sevim Güngör v. Turkey
32
 the Court dealt with the death of an elderly 
patient from bronchopneumonia in a hospital. The applicant’s mother was an elderly 
woman with a history of cardiac and hypertension problems and was suffering from 
severe malnutrition and decubitus ulcers when she was admitted to hospital. She 
died a few days later from respiratory and circulatory insufficiency as a result of 
bronchopneumonia. The applicant alleged that doctors had failed to undertake the 
necessary measures to properly treat her mother, thereby causing her death. The 
Court noted that it is not its function under Article 2 of the Convention to gainsay 
either the doctors’ assessment of the applicant's mother, or their decisions regarding 
how she should have been treated. These assessments and decisions were made 
against the background of the deceased’s state of health at the time and the doctors’ 
perceptions as to what steps needed to be taken for her treatment. Having due regard 
for the detailed rules and standards laid down in the domestic law and practice of 
the respondent State in the area under consideration, the Court held that it could 
not be maintained that the relevant regulatory framework disclosed any 
shortcomings which would provide the basis for an arguable claim of a breach of 
the domestic authorities’ obligation to protect the right to life of the applicant’s 
mother. 
 
In the following cases courts held that on the facts before them there either was no 
violation of Article 2 or declared the cases inadmissible. Ursu v. Romania (death 
caused by cardiac arrest); Maruseva v. Russia (death of a child in the course of a 
cardiac surgery operation); Besen v. Turkey (death of the applicant’s mother 
following surgery); E.M. and Others v. Romania (death in hospital due to a bacterial 
infection following surgery); Buksa v. Poland (death of a baby due to an undiagnosed 
abdominal non-malignant tumour in her liver;, Çakmak v. Turkey (electrocution of 
the applicants’ relative while picking up pinecones from a tree in the garden of a 
primary school); and, Aktaş v. Turkey (death of the applicant’s son when his 
motorcycle collided with a pickup truck) (Council of Europe, 2019: 41). 
 
The Court has underlined that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical 
integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to established an 
“effective judicial system” will be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a 
remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the 
                                                      
32
 Sevim Güngör v. Turkey, Application no. 75173/01, decision on inadmissibility. 

36 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
criminal courts, enabling any responsibility to be established and any appropriate 
civil redress to be obtained. It has also accepted that disciplinary measures may also 
be envisaged (Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], § 51; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], § 
90; Vo v. France [GC], § 90; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, § 73; Cevrioğlu v. Turkey, 
§ 54; Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], §§ 137 and 215) (Council of 
Europe, 2019: 41). 
 
9 Negligence and liability of health professionals 
 
The ECtHR has, especially in more recent cases, dealt with the question concerning 
circumstances involving a medical error and which constitute a breach of a right 
provided by the ECHR and is therefore the State’s responsibility. Additionally, the 
Court has considered cases in which it concluded that under the evidence presented 
a Contracting State cannot be held responsible for violation of the rights enshrined 
in the ECHR which implicitly include the right to health. In the latter case, the legal 
responsibility lies with an individual (i.e., the healthcare service provider rendering 
the service to the patient) according to the internal law of each State. 
 
In Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy
33
 the ECtHR stated that positive obligations under 
Article 2 of the Convention “require States to make regulations compelling hospitals 
… to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients’ lives” and “an 
effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of 
patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private 
sector, can be determined and those responsible made accountable …”. The Court 
held in Sevim Güngör v. Turkey
34
 that the first sentence of Article 2 requires the 
State not only to refrain from the “intentional” taking of life, but also to take 
appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. The latter 
positive obligation extends to the public-health sphere. Consequently, States must 
regulate the health service, whether private or public, in order to provide appropriate 
measures for the protection of patients’ lives. However, where adequate provision 
has been made for securing high professional standards in the health service and the 
protection of patients, an error of judgment (even if established) on the part of a 
                                                      
33
 Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy, Application No. 32967/96, Judgment of 17 January 2002 (Grand Chamber), para. 49. 
34
 Sevim Güngör v. Turkey, Application No. 75173/01, 14 April 2009, Decision on inadmissibility, 
para. B. The Court recalls the case Byrzykowski v. Poland, Application No. 11562/05, Judgment of 
27 June 2006, para. 104. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
37. 
 
 
health professional or negligent co-ordination in the treatment of a particular patient 
do not necessarily or automatically trigger the State’s liability under Article 2 of the 
Convention. 
 
However, the State is not directly liable under Article 2 for deaths resulting from 
medical negligence by state health personnel, except for deaths occurring in prison 
(Harris, O’Boyle, Bates & Buckley, 2014: 213). In Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. 
Portugal, the Court underlined that even in cases where medical negligence was 
established, it would normally find a substantive violation of Article 2 only if the 
relevant regulatory framework failed to ensure proper protection of the patient’s 
life.
35
 In this connection, the Court considered that where a Contracting State has 
made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health 
professionals and the protection of the lives of patients, matters such as an error of 
judgment on the part of a health professional or negligent coordination among 
health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient cannot be considered 
sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint 
of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to Protect Life (Powell 
v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Dodov v. Bulgaria, § 82; Kudra v. Croatia, § 102; 
Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], § 187) (Council of Europe, 2019: 12-
13). 
 
According to the ECtHR a Contracting State may not be held accountable for the 
health risks for which it could not have known. The case G.N. and Others v. Italy
36
 
concerned the infection of the applicants or their relatives with human 
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C. The persons concerned suffered from 
a hereditary disorder (thalassaemia) and were infected following blood transfusions 
carried out by the State health service. The applicants complained in particular that 
the authorities had not carried out the necessary checks to prevent infection. The 
Court held that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention regarding 
the obligation to protect the lives of the applicants and their relatives, observing in 
particular that it had not been established that at the material time the Ministry of 
Health had known or should have known about the risk of transmission of HIV or 
                                                      
35
 Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal, Application No. 56080/13, Judgment of 15 December 2015 (Grand 
Chamber), para 187. 
36
 G.N. and Others v. Italy, Application No. 43134/05, Judgment of 1 December 2009. 

38 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
hepatitis C via blood transfusion, and that it could not determine from what dates 
onward the Ministry had been or should have been aware of the risk. 
 
In two very exceptional circumstances, the Court has accepted that the responsibility 
of the State under the substantive limb of Article 2 was engaged as regards the acts 
and omissions of health-care providers. The first situation was where an individual 
patient’s life was knowingly put in danger by a denial of access to life-saving 
emergency treatment. Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey
37
 concerned the 
death of a pregnant woman following a series of misjudgements by medical staffs at 
different hospitals and the subsequent failure to provide her with emergency medical 
treatment when her condition was known to be critical. The applicants, her husband 
and her son, alleged that the right to life of their wife and mother and the child she 
had been carrying had been infringed as a result of the negligence of the medical 
staff involved. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to life. It 
found that the deceased had been the victim of blatant shortcomings on the part of 
the hospital authorities and had been denied the possibility of access to appropriate 
emergency treatment, in violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2. The second 
exceptional case where the Court accepted State responsibility for medical error 
involved a situation where a systemic or structural dysfunction in hospital services 
resulted in a patient being deprived of access to life-saving emergency treatment and 
further where the medical authorities knew or ought to have known about that risk 
and failed to take the necessary measures to prevent that risk from materialising, 
thus putting the patients’ lives, including the life of the particular patient concerned, 
in danger (Council of Europe, 2019: 13-14). In Asiye Genç v. Turkey
38
 the 
applicants, whose daughter was born prematurely and died two days later at the 
hospital to which she had been transferred for emergency treatment, alleged that the 
death of their daughter had been caused by professional negligence on the part of 
the staff of the hospital where she had been treated. The Court held that there had 
been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, finding that the baby had been the 
victim of a lack of coordination between healthcare professionals, coupled with 
structural deficiencies in the hospital system, and that she had been denied access to 
appropriate emergency treatment, in breach of her right to protection of her life. 
 
                                                      
37
 Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, Application No. 13423/09, Judgment of 9 April 2013. 
38
 Asiye Genç v. Turkey, Application No. 24109/07, Judgment of 27 January 2015. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
39. 
 
 
For the Court, in order for a case to rise to the level that constitutes a denial of access 
to life-saving emergency treatment under Article 2, the following factors, taken 
cumulatively, must be met: firstly, the acts and omissions of the health-care providers 
must go beyond a mere error or medical negligence in the sense that the health-care 
providers, in breach of their professional obligations, deny a patient emergency 
medical treatment despite being fully aware that the person’s life is at risk if that 
treatment is not given; secondly, the impugned misconduct (whether act or 
omission) must be objectively and genuinely identifiable as systemic or structural in 
order to be attributable to the State authorities; thirdly, there must be a direct causal 
link between the impugned dysfunction and the harm sustained; and finally, the 
dysfunction must result from the failure of the State to meet its obligation to provide 
a regulatory framework in the broader sense (Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal 
[GC], §§ 191-196) (Council of Europe, 2019: 13-14). 
 
Violation of the right to life was found also in a more recent case, Altuğ and Others 
v. Turkey
39
 which concerned the death of a 74 year old relative of the applicants as 
the result of a violent allergic reaction to a penicillin derivative administered by 
intravenous injection in a private hospital. The applicants alleged that the medical 
team had not complied with their legal obligations to conduct an anamnesis 
(questioning of patients or their relatives on their medical history and possible 
allergies), to inform the patient of the possibility of an allergic reaction and to obtain 
their consent to administration of the drug. The Court held that there had been a 
violation of the right to life. 
 
The Court examined several other cases raising issues of medical negligence and/or 
denial of access to treatment in hospital, such as: 
 
− administration of drugs to a disabled child despite his mother’s opposition 
(Glass v. the United Kingdom); 
− death of a pregnant woman suffering from ulcerative colitis (Z v. Poland); 
− death in a hospital related to pulmonary complications and the patient’s 
refusal to consent to treatment (Arskaya v. Ukraine); 
− death of the applicant’s son in a hospital where unlicensed medical acts were 
carried out on him by doctors who lacked either the necessary licences or 
                                                      
39
 Altuğ and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 32086/07, Judgment of 30 June 2015. 

40 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
qualifications in violation of domestic law (Sarishvili-Bolkvadze v. 
Georgia).
40
 
 
10 Does a narrowly open window for the right to health in the ECHR shift 
responsibility from the state to medical professionals? 
 
Although the ECHR does not explicitly guarantee the right to healthcare, this 
traditional view must be read in the light of developments in the case-law under the 
ECHR. The analysed jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows that there is a thin line 
between the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the ECHR and socio-
economic rights such as the right to health(care). As it was presented, the Court has 
considered a significant number of cases which involved a socio-economic 
dimension, including health in which one or more issues were raised under one or 
more fundamental civil and political rights guaranteed under the ECHR. 
Consequently, health issues have arisen before the Court in a wide variety of 
circumstances (Council of Europe, 2019: 4). 
 
Why is it so significant for a certain human right to be recognised expressly by the 
ECHR if it is already encompassed in another international treaty, e.g. ESC? This 
distinction relates to the binding nature of the ECHR and other international 
treaties. The most relevant expression of such nature is rooted in different systems 
of monitoring of the implementation of the ECHR and other international 
instruments. The ECHR is binding for all its Contracting States,
41
 and this liability 
is further strengthened by the provision of its Article 46. It lays down that the High 
Contracting Parties have undertaken to abide by the final judgment of the Court in 
any case to which they are parties. The same article regulates the mechanism to be 
employed should a State fail to comply with a judgment of the ECtHR. According 
to the established case-law of the ECtHR, a failure to comply with its judgment may 
constitute breach of the ECHR itself.
42
 
 
                                                      
40
 Altuğ and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 32086/07, Judgement of 30 June 2015. 
41
 According to Article 1 of the Convention the High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their 
jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention. 
42
 Council of Europe, Human rights files, No. 19, The execution of judgments of the European Court of Human 
Rights, 2
nd
 Edition, Council of Europe Publishing, January 2008. See also Handbook on European non-
discrimination law, Council of Europe and the European Union, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg 2018, p. 250. See cases García Mateos v . Spain, Hulea v . Romania and Sidabras and Others v . Lithuania. 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
41. 
 
 
No other international treaty adopted within the Council of Europe requires its 
implementation to be monitored of. Implementation of the ESC is submitted to a 
different system of control developed both by the Amending Protocol of 1991 and 
the Additional Protocol of 1995 which provide for a system of collective complaints. 
According to Article 21 of the ESC (applicable also for the revised ESC), State 
Parties are required to regularly submit reports on their implementation of the 
Charter not only in law bit in practice. These reports are in turn examined by the 
European Committee of Social Rights, which decides whether the national 
situations they describe comply with the Charter. In 1995 the ‘Collective Complaints 
procedure’ was introduced by the Additional Protocol providing for a system of 
collective complaints. The goal of the Collective Complaints procedure was to 
increase the effectiveness, speed and impact of the Charter’s implementation.
43
 In 
contrast with the ECHR, the ESC does not provide for the expressly binding 
decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights. Nor does the competence 
of the ECtHR include the rights enshrined in the ESL. Obligations under the ECHR 
thus have far more binding force than obligations under the ESL or, for that matter, 
any other international treaty providing for rights in the field of healthcare. Only if 
the ECtHR interprets a right guaranteed by the ECHR in a way that it includes also 
a right provided by other international instruments on human rights does it become 
possible to conclude that the ECHR implicitly guarantees such rights as well. As 
regards the right to health, the Court's jurisprudence shows that the window for such 
interpretation has been open. It remains to be seen in the future to how extensive 
this interpretation will become. 
 
If the ECHR is interpreted as providing the right to health care, the Contracting 
States will be bound to ensure that right in their national legislations and policies. 
According to the analyzed case-law, this obligation includes States’ responsibilities 
to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction by 
regulating the health service, whether private or public, in order to provide 
appropriate measures for the protection of patients’ lives. This obligation includes 
adopting adequate provisions for securing high professional standards among health 
professionals. Contracting States are not directly liable under Article 2 for deaths 
resulting from medical negligence by State health personnel. Even in cases where 
                                                      
43
 Council of Europe, European Social Charter, Collective complaints procedure. Retrieved from: 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter/collective-complaints-procedure (20 January 2020). 

42 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
medical negligence is established, such negligence would constitute a substantive 
violation of Article 2 only if the relevant regulatory framework fails to ensure proper 
protection of the patient. An error of judgment on the part of a health professional 
or negligent coordination among health professionals in the treatment of a patient 
standing alone cannot be considered sufficient to impose liability upon a Contracting 
State from the standpoint of its positive obligations. In accordance to the ECtHR 
jurisprudence, as discussed earlier, the responsibility of the State under Article 2 
exists only in exceptional cases as regards the acts and omissions of health-care 
providers: where a patient’s life was knowingly put in danger by a denial of access to 
life-saving emergency treatment or where a systemic or structural dysfunction in 
hospital services resulted in a patient being deprived of access to life-saving 
emergency treatment where the authorities knew or ought to have known about that 
risk and failed to take the necessary measures to prevent that risk from materializing. 
 
If the State fulfils its responsibilities according to Article 2 of the ECHR and yet a 
medical error occurs, the question of direct responsibility of a medical professional 
will arise. Since the ECHR only binds Contracting States, the ECtHR does not have 
jurisdiction over individuals. This question would have to be addressed within the 
national legal system and according to its rules. In a procedure before a national 
court all the national rules on the responsibility for medical negligence would be 
applicable, including the direct responsibility, civil or criminal, of the medical 
professional concerned. In such cases the ECtHR case-law involving the right to 
health could be used as an important benchmark in assessing whether the State has 
complied with its obligations enshrined in the ECHR relating implicitly to 
healthcare. If the Contracting State has done so, it would be an important argument 
to the benefit of a person claiming the direct criminal or civil responsibility of a 
medical professional either in criminal or especially in civil procedure.  
 
It may be concluded, that based on the ECtHR case-law it is not possible to shift 
the responsibility for medical error from Contracting States to health professionals. 
However, the analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence enables parties to make a clearer 
distinction when it comes to the question under which circumstances it is possible 
to hold a State responsible for violation of the rights as provided by the ECHR, 
especially the right to life, and in which case this responsibility is on an individual 
health professional. 
 

J. Murgelj: Medical Negliegence and Liability of Health Professionals in the European Court of Human 
Rights Case Law 
43. 
 
 
Legislation and legal documents, cases: 
 
Airey v. Ireland, Application No. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979.  
Altuğ and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 32086/07, Judgment of 30 June 2015 
Asiye Genç v. Turkey, Application No. 24109/07, Judgment of 27 January 2015. 
Aydoğdu v. Turkey, Application No. 40448/06, Judgment of 30 August 2016. 
Bajić v. Croatia, Application No. 41108/10, Judgment of 13 November 2012. 
Bilbija and Blažević v. Croatia, Application No. 62870/13, Judgment of 12 January 2016. 
Byrzykowski v. Poland, Application No. 11562/05, Judgment of 27 June 2006.  
Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy, Application No. 32967/96, Judgment of 17 January 2002 (Grand Chamber). 
Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the 
Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, 
European Treaty Series No. 164. 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series 
No. 5. 
Council of Europe / European Court of Human Rights, Health-Related Issues in the Case-Law of the 
European Court of Human Rights, June 2015. Retrieved from: 
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_health.pdf (24 January 2020). 
Council of Europe, Human rights files, No. 19, The execution of judgments of the European Court of 
Human Rights, 2nd Edition, Council of Europe Publishing, January 2008.  
Council of Europe, The European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 2 of the Convention – 
Right to life (2019). Retrieved from:  
 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_2_ENG.pdf (3 January 2020). 
Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No. 25781/94, Judgment of 10 May 2001.  
Dodov v. Bulgaria, Application No. 59548/00, Judgment of 17 January 2008. 
Erdinç Kurt v. Turkey, Application No. 50772/11, Judgment of 25 June 2019. 
European Social Charter (revised), European Treaty Series No. 163. 
European Social Security Code, European Treaty Series No. 48. 
G.N. and Others v. Italy, Application No. 43134/05, Judgment of 1 December 2009. 
Gäfgen v. Germany, Application No. 22978/05, Judgment June 2010 (Grand Chamber). 
İlhan v. Turkey, Application No. 22277/93, Judgement of 27 June 2000. 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Retrieved form: 
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx (24. 1. 2020). 
Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, Application Nos.33192/07 and 33194/07, Judgment 25 June 2013. 
Karpisiewicz v. Poland, Application No. 14730/09, Judgment of 11 December 2012. 
L.C.B. v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 14/1997/798/1001, Judgment of 9 June 1998. 
Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, Application No. 13423/09, Judgment of 9 April 2013. 
McCann v. UK, Application No. 18984/91, Judgment of 27 September 1995 (Grand Chamber). 
Nitecki v. Poland, Application No. 65653/01, Judgment of 21 March 2002.  
P. and S. v. Poland, Application No. 57375/08, Judgment of 30 October 2012. 
Šilih v. Slovenia, Application No. 71463/01, Judgment of 9 April 2009 (Grand Chamber). 
Sevim Güngör v. Turkey, Application no. 75173/01, decision on inadmissibility. 
S.A. v. Turkey, Application No. 62299/09, Judgment of 16 January 2018. 
Vo v. France, Application No. 53924/00, Judgment of 8 July 2004, Grand Chamber. 
Zafer Öztürk v. Turkey, Application No. 25774/09, Judgment of 21 July 2015. 
 
References 
 
Božič Penko, A. (2017) Nekatera pravna vprašanja z zvezi z odgovornostjo za zdravniško napako v 
sodni praksi, Pravni letopis, pp. 69-88 (Inštitut za primerjalno pravo pri Pravni fakulteti v 
Ljubljani). 

44 MEDICINE, LAW & SOCIETY.   
 
 
Da Lomba, S. (2014) The ECHR, Health Care and Irregular Migrants, In Freeman M, Hawkes, S. & 
Benett, B. (eds.) Law and Global Health: Current Legal Issue, Vol. 16 (Oxford University Press), 
pp. 149-164. 
Graham, L. (2017) The European Court of Human Rights and the Emerging Right to Health, OxHRH 
Blog, 11 May 2017, retrieved from: http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-european-court-of-human-
rights-and-the-emerging-right-to-health (15. 1. 2020). 
Handbook on European non-discrimination law (2018) (Luxembourg: Council of Europe and the European 
Union, Publications Office of the European Union). 
Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E. P. & Buckley, C. M. (2014) Law of the European Convention on Human 
Rights, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press), pp. 212-213. 
McHale, J. (2010) Fundamental rights and health care, In: Mossialos, E., Permanand, G., Baeten, R. & 
Hervey, T. K. (eds.) Health System Governance in Europe. The Role of European Union Law and Policy 
(Cambridge University Press), pp. 282-314. 
Ovčak Kos, M. & Božič Penko, A. (2018) Dileme v primerih odškodninskega prava v zvezi z 
odgovornostjo za medicinsko napako (2.), Odvetnik, 84(1), pp. 10-17. 
Žnidaršič Skubic, V . (2018) Civilno medicinsko pravo. Izbrane teme (Ljubljana: Uradni list Republike 
Slovenije).