The aim of the study it to reconstruct the European standard for the protection of patients’ lives in its substantive and procedural aspects. In the case-law of the bodies of the system of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the scope of the state authorities’ substantive and procedural obligation to protect the right to life in the health care system was defined for the first time by the European Commission of Human Rights in the decision of 22 May 1995 in Mehmet Işıltan v. Turkey, and then repeated in the case-law of the reformed Court in the decision on the admissibility in Powell v. United Kingdom. The study of the European standard for the protection of patients’ lives traces its history, from Mehmet Işıltan v. Turkey and Powell v. United Kingdom; through developments of the meaning of its substantive limb, as illustrated by Mehmet and Bekir Senturk v. Turkey, Asiye Genc v. Turkey, Aydogdu v. Turkey, and Elena Cojocaru v. Romania; to developments of the meaning of its procedural limb, as exemplified by Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, Wojciech Byrzykowski v. Poland, Šilih v. Slovenia, and Gray v. Germany; and finally covers the Court’s attempt to sum up its previous approach to the European standard for the protection of patients’ lives, as expressed in the case of Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal.
Curtice, Martin J. R., Sandford John J. “Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: A Review of
Case Law Related to Forensic Psychiatry and Prisoners in the United Kingdom.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 37, iss. 2. 2009: 232–238.
Garlicki, Leszek. “Prawo do ochrony zdrowia na tle ‘prawa do życia’ (uwagi o aktualnym orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka).” In Dookoła Wojtek… Księga pamiątkowa poświęcona Doktorowi Arturowi Wojciechowi Preisnerowi, edited by Ryszard Balicki, and Mariusz Jabłoński. Wrocław, 2018: 211–220.
Kapelańska-Pręgowska, Julia. “Medical Negligence, Systemic Deficiency, or Denial of Emergency Healthcare? Reflections on the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber Judgment in Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal of 19 December 2017 and Previous Case-law.” European Journal of Health Law 26, iss. 1. 2019: 26–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-12550407
Łasak, Katarzyna. Prawa społeczne w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. Warszawa, 2013.
Nissen, Aleydis. “A Right to Access to Emergency Health Care: The European Court of Human Rights Pushes the Envelope.” Medical Law Review 26, iss. 4. 2018: 693–702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx059
Schabas, William A. The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary. Oxford, 2015.
Schabas, William A. “Do the ‘Underlying Values’ of the European Convention on Human Rights Begin in 1950?.” Polish Yearbook Of International Law, no. 33. 2013: 247–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473112
Tabaszewski, Robert. Prawo do zdrowia w systemach ochrony praw człowieka. Lublin, 2016.
Wiśniewski, Adam. “Naruszenie prawa do życia z powodu braku skutecznego śledztwa w celu ustalenia odpowiedzialności za śmierć syna skarżącego (sprawa Przemyk przeciwko Polsce). Glosa do wyroku ETPC z dnia 17 września 2013 r., 22426/11.” Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze – Przegląd Orzecznictwa. 2013: 117–124.
Wright, Jane. “The Operational Obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Challenges for Coherence – Views from the English Supreme Court and Strasbourg.” Journal of European Tort Law 7, no. 1. 2016: 58–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2016-0001
Asiye Genç v. Turkey, Application No. 24109/07, Judgement of 27 January 2015.
Aydoğdu v. Turkey, Application No. 40448/06, Judgement of 30 August 2016.
Byrzykowski v. Poland, Application No. 11562/05, Judgement of 27 June 2006.
Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, Application No. 32967/96, Judgement of 17 January 2002.
Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, Application No. 74114/12, Judgement of 22 March 2016.
Gray v. Germany, Application No. 49278/09, Judgement of 22 May 2014.
Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal, Application No. 56080/13, Judgement of 19 December 2017.
Mehmet Işıltan v. Turkey, Application No. 20948/92, Judgement of 22 May 1995.
Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, Application No. 13423/09, Judgement of 9 April 2013.
Powell v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 45305/99, Judgement of 4 May 2000.
Šilih v. Slovenia, Application No. 71463/01, Judgement of 9 April 2009.
Copyright (c) 2022 Paweł Kwiatkowski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.