4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kovel.
5.  At about 1.30 p.m. on 27 August 2003 the applicant’s daughter (two years old at that time) was admitted in a critical condition to the infectious diseases ward of the Kovel City Hospital. She was diagnosed with acute enterocolitis with concomitant illnesses. At 3.45 p.m. her condition aggravated, and acrocyanosis of the lips and nose were noted. At 4 p.m. the resuscitation specialists performed artificial pulmonary ventilation and cardiac massage. At 5.40 p.m. the doctors stated that the applicant’s daughter had died.
6.  On 9 September 2003 the applicant complained to the Kovel inter‑district prosecutor’s office (“the prosecutor’s office”) about the death of his daughter in hospital.
7.  On 19 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors of the hospital for lack of corpus delicti. The next day that decision was quashed by the supervising prosecutor and further inquiry was ordered.
8.  On 10 October 2003 the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings to investigate the allegations of medical negligence and failure to ensure the right of the applicant’s daughter to free medical aid.
9.  On 16 June 2004 a panel of forensic medical experts found, inter alia, that the resuscitation measures had been delayed; however, there was no guarantee that the outcome would have been positive had those measures been taken in a timely fashion. The experts considered that the principal cause of death was the nature and seriousness of the illnesses, which had caused the patient’s brain to swell.
10.  On 24 June 2005 the Volyn regional prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigation had been delayed and that instructions had been given to investigate the case properly.
11.  On 16 September 2006 the forensic medical experts issued an additional report stating, inter alia, that the applicant’s daughter had been admitted to hospital five days after the first symptoms of the pathological process. If her family had sought medical aid in due time, her life and health prognosis could have been more favourable.
12.  On 3 December 2007 the investigators in charge of the criminal case were disciplined for causing delays and for failure to take all the necessary measures during the investigations.
13.  On 24 July 2008 Dr G. was charged with the offences of failure to provide medical aid to a patient by a medical practitioner and violation of the right to free medical aid.
14.  On 7 August 2008 the investigation was completed. The case was referred to the court for trial.
15.  On 5 November 2008 the Turiysk District Court returned the case to the prosecutor’s office stating that the prosecutor had not complied with procedural requirements when submitting the case file to the court.
16.  On 8 January 2009 the prosecutor’s office decided that additional investigative steps should be carried out in the case.
17.  On 30 March 2009 the Turiysk District Court committed Dr G. for trial.
18.  On 26 October 2009 the Turiysk District Court found that on 27 August 2003 Dr G. had committed the offence of failing to provide the applicant’s daughter with medical aid. It also released her from any punishment due to the expiry of the time-limit for criminal responsibility. The court then acquitted Dr G. of a violation of the right to free medical aid, finding that that charge had been unsubstantiated. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against that judgment.
19.  On 23 February 2010 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 26 October 2009 as regards Dr G.’s partial acquittal. As regards her conviction, it stated that the trial court had failed to specify the punishment from which she had been released. The Court of Appeal therefore quashed the judgment in that part and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh consideration.
20.  On 30 June 2010 the Turiysk District Court held that Dr G. was guilty of failing to provide medical aid to the applicant’s daughter. It found that between 3.45 p.m. and 4 p.m. on 27 August 2003 she had failed to carry out artificial respiration and cardiac massage and that those failures had reduced the chances of success of the resuscitation measures carried out subsequently by the other doctors. The court sentenced Dr G. to a fine and a three-year ban on medical practice. It nevertheless released her from that punishment due to the expiry of the time-limit for criminal responsibility.
21.  On 24 September 2010 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
22.  On 23 September 2011 the applicant initiated civil proceedings seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the hospital’s failure to ensure appropriate medical treatment for his daughter. Dr G. was admitted to the proceedings as a third party.
23.  On 7 March 2012 the Starovyzhivskyy District Court found that the applicant had sustained non-pecuniary damage on account of the professional misconduct of Dr G. The court awarded the applicant 20,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnias in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In its reasons the court referred to the findings of the domestic court dealing with the criminal case against Dr G. The court further found that, in accordance with the statutory documents of the Kovel Inter-District Territorial Medical Association, that legal entity was obliged to pay the amount awarded.
24.  On 18 April 2012 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 March 2012.
25.  On 25 May 2012 the Higher Specialised Court for Criminal and Civil Matters refused the applicant leave to appeal in cassation against these decisions.