25.60Passannante v Italy Application no 32647/96, (2002) 5 CCLR 340
A delay in providing healthcare to which a person was entitled by virtue of contributions might raise an issue under Article 8 ECHR if there was a serious risk to health
Facts: Ms Passannate was told she would have to wait five months to see a consultant at public expense but could see him in four days on a private paying basis. She declined to see the consultant at all and claimed that her rights under Article 8 ECHR had been breached.
Judgment: the Commission declared the complaint inadmissible but held the door ajar for stronger cases:
The Commission recalls that, while the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private life (see ECtHR, Stjerna v Finland judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A No 299-B, p 61, para 38 and ECtHR, Botta judgment of 24 February 1998, para 33, cited above).
The Commission notes the Italian public health service is based on compulsory contributions which entitle those who pay them to certain services, among which medical examinations within public hospitals. Therefore, the Commission considers that, in such circumstances where the State has an obligation to provide medical care, an excessive delay of the public health service in providing a medical service to which the patient is entitled and the fact that such delay has, or is likely to have, a serious impact on the patient’s health could raise an issue under Article 8 para 1 of the Convention.
The Commission notes the absence under domestic law of time-limits within which a person should be granted the required medical service. However, although the applicant submits that she had to wait five months in order merely to book the medical examination, she did not prove nor even allege that the above delay had a serious impact on her physical or psychological conditions.
The Commission further notes that the applicant, after the telephone conversation with the hospital’s operator, apparently renounced from seeing the doctor which indicates, in the Commission’s opinion, that she did not consider the medical visit crucial for her health.
Therefore the Commission considers that the circumstances of the present case are not such as to warrant the conclusion that the delay of the public authorities raises a serious issue under Article 8 of the Convention and that the present application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously, declares the application inadmissible.