Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The applicant, Y . Y . , is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in St Petersburg .
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In April 2003 the applicant gave premature birth to twins at a maternity hospital in St Petersburg . One child died nine hours later as a result of respiratory failure. The other child, who was transferred to a children � s hospital for neonatal resuscitation , survived.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her personal and her children � s medical data was obtained, examined and released without her consent in breach of the relevant legislation, in particular, Article 61 � 3 of the Law on the basics of the public health legislation, which provides for a person � s consent as a general condition for release of information containing medical secrecy .
The applicant complains under Article 6 � 1 of the Convention that she did not have a fair hearing. In particular, the first-instance court allegedly shifted the burden of proof on the applicant in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure, its finding that the application was time-barred was erroneous and by stating different reasons in dismissing the application it allowed for different interpretation of its judgment. The appeal court � s judgment was a complete copy of the first-instance court � s judgment lacking reasons for which the applicant � s points of appeal were rejected.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.