5.  The applicants, Dorina and Viorel-Aurel[2] Ioniță, were born in 1976 and 1972 respectively and live in Brăila. 6.  On 7 November 2005 the applicants’ son, aged four years and nine months at that time, underwent surgery for the removal of polyps, which was performed by Dr C.B. in the State-run Brăila Emergency Hospital. 7.  Dr C.B. decided to perform the operation under general anaesthetic with tracheal intubation. The general anaesthesia was performed by Dr P.A, assisted by P.V.I., a staff nurse. 8.  After surgery the child was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit. Ten minutes after his transfer P.V.I. informed Dr P.A that the child was cyanotic and had no pulse. 9.  The child suffered a haemorrhage, causing blood to flood his lungs. A team of doctors tried to resuscitate him and clear his respiratory channels, but without any success. The child was declared dead two hours after the operation. 10.  A criminal investigation into the cause of death was opened by the Brăila police on the same day. 11.  Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. were questioned and gave written statements. 12.  An autopsy report issued by the Brăila Forensic Service (Serviciul de medicină legală Brăila) on 8 November 2005 said that the applicants’ son had died of acute respiratory failure as a result of the blood that had blocked his airways and flooded his lungs. It also noted that the child had suffered from several congenital deficiencies which had probably played a role in the post‑operative complications: myocardia and hepatic dystrophy, and interatrial septum aneurisms. 13.  The report was sent for the approval of the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute (Comisia de avizare și control din cadrul IMF Iaşi). On 5 May 2006 the commission confirmed that the child’s death had occurred after surgery and had been caused by the blood that had blocked his airways and lungs. It held that there had been a causal link between the post-operative treatment and the child’s death. It noted the deflation of the balloon of the catheter (balonaşul sondei de întubaţie), applied after post-operatively to prevent the ingress of blood into the lungs, as a possible cause of the presence of blood there and in his airways. 14.  On 12 October 2006 the superior commission of the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute examined all the documents and approved the conclusions of the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute. 15.  On 8 November 2005 the child’s father lodged a disciplinary complaint against Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. 16.  The disciplinary committee of the Brăila College of Doctors opened an investigation into the patient’s death, collecting documents from the patient’s medical file and taking statements from Dr C.B. and Dr P.A., as well as from the doctors involved in the resuscitation procedure post‑operation. It gave its decision on 9 July 2007 by which it concluded that the child’s death could be included among cases of sudden death (with a frequency of 2-4 % owing to the child’s pre-existing medical conditions: myocardia and hepatic dystrophy, and inter-atrial septum aneurisms). Although the committee concluded that there had been no direct link between the child’s death and the doctors’ medical conduct, it reprimanded both doctors for their failure to perform the necessary pre-surgical medical tests and to seek the applicants’ informed consent before surgery. 17.  The applicants objected to the committee’s conclusions and their appeal was examined by the superior disciplinary committee of the National College of Doctors. 18.  An expert medical opinion was submitted to the committee and was used by it in reaching its final conclusions. The expert noted, among other things, that the child’s preparation for surgery had not been appropriate as his examination before anaesthesia had been “very superficial”; in this respect the committee noted the lack of a radioscopy of the lungs, of an EKG and an exploration of the necessary time for blood coagulation. In the expert’s view, the doctors had ignored the child’s severe congenital deficiencies as they had considered that surgery for the removal of polyps had been a “minor intervention” and therefore no special precautions had been necessary. 19.  By a decision of 6 June 2008 the superior disciplinary committee of the National College of Doctors quashed the decision of 9 July 2007 and fined each doctor 1,000 Romanian lei (the equivalent of approximately 220 euros (EUR)). It found that the child’s pre-surgical tests had been insufficient for avoiding post-operative complications. Therefore, it held that Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. had infringed Article 53 of the Medical Deontological Code, pursuant to which a doctor should perform diagnoses with maximum diligence in order to determine the adequate treatment and avoid predictable complications that might occur for a patient under his or her care. 20.  The committee further stated that the presence of blood in the child’s airways could not be explained on the basis of the documents and statements in the file. It noted that all the doctors and the nurses who had given evidence stated that the balloon of the intubation catheter had been leak‑proof (etanche); however, the fact that the cause of death had been the presence of blood in the child’s lungs could only lead to the conclusion that such statements had been inaccurate. 21.  Relying on Articles 58 and 60 of the Deontological Code and Article 6 of Law no. 46/2003, the committee also noted that the parents had not given their informed consent. 22.  On 7 November 2005 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the flawed surgical and post-surgical treatment received by their son had resulted in his death. They asked that those responsible be identified and held accountable for their son’s death. They joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties. 23.  Following a request of the Brăila Police Inspectorate, on 19 July 2006 Brăila Emergency Hospital stated that the medical staff members in charge of monitoring the child were Dr P.A. during the intervention and the child’s transfer to the intensive care unit and P.V.I. while in the intensive care unit. 24.  On 5 January 2007 the prosecutor’s office of the Brăila District Court decided to institute criminal proceedings against Dr P.A. 25.  P.V.I. was interviewed as a witness immediately after the child’s death, during the preliminary criminal investigation. During the criminal proceedings against Dr P.A., in spite of the fact that she had been repeatedly summoned, the investigating authorities were not able to question her as she had not been found. She had left her job at the Brăila Emergency Hospital in January 2006. 26.  The prosecuting authorities interviewed several doctors and nurses from the hospital’s medical staff who had been involved in the applicants’ son’s post-operative care. 27.  Dr P.A. lodged a request with the investigating body for a new forensic medical report. He pointed out that there were major contradictions between the autopsy report and the opinion issued by the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute. 28.  On 4 April 2007 the Brăila Police Inspectorate asked the Iaşi Forensic Institute to carry out a forensic expert report that would identify the cause and circumstances of the child’s death. The Iaşi Forensic Institute replied that a new forensic report could not be produced as the evidence examined had been sent by Brăila Forensic Service to the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute. 29.  On 20 February 2008 Dr P.A. submitted an extrajudicial expert report. It stated that the cause of death had not been the presence of blood in the child’s lungs owing to a lack of adequate post-operative monitoring, but the post-operative reaction of a child with pre-existing medical conditions (cardiac congenital malformation, hepatic dystrophy, renal stasis, mesenteric adenopathy and hemorrhagic enterocolitis) mentioned in the medical records kept by the child’s paediatrician. The report noted a generalised inflammatory reaction associated with diffused haemorrhages in his digestive tract, lungs, heart and spleen. 30.  The applicants gave evidence to the investigating authorities on 23 January 2008. They contended that they had not been properly informed about the risks of surgery and of the general anaesthetic and consequently they had not given their consent for such interventions. 31.  On 30 June 2008 the Brăila Police Inspectorate ordered that a new forensic report be produced by the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute. The applicants, Dr P.A. and the investigating authorities submitted several questions for the forensic experts. They asked, among other things, whether the pre-existent medical condition of the child had influenced his unfavourable post-surgical evolution and whether administration of a general anaesthetic had been the right option, given the age and the diagnosis of the child. The child’s father also asked the Forensic Institute whether the post-operative monitoring of the child had been adequate. 32.  However, on 28 July 2008 the Forensic Institute replied that it could not deliver such a report because under the relevant domestic legislation a new forensic expert report could not be ordered unless there were new medical and factual elements. Accordingly, the Forensic Institute stated that it maintained its previous opinion. 33.  Copies of the documents from the disciplinary file were added to the criminal file. 34.  On 30 September 2008 the prosecutor’s office of the Brăila County Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Dr P.A., finding, in the light of evidence gathered in the case, that there had been no element of criminal negligence in his conduct. That decision was upheld on 10 November 2008 by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor’s office. 35.  A complaint by the applicants against the prosecutors’ decisions was allowed by the Brăila District Court on 25 February 2009. The prosecutors’ decisions were quashed and the District Court kept the file for fresh consideration. It considered that although a new forensic report had not been produced, the decision of the superior committee of the National College of Doctors provided enough information concerning the cause of death, which had been the presence of blood in the child’s airways owing to the balloon of the tracheal catheter not being tight enough. It considered that it should be established whether the post-operative monitoring of the child by Dr P.A. had been appropriate and more precisely whether Dr P.A. should have noticed the non-functioning catheter. 36.  Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. gave statements before the District Court on 18 January 2010. Moreover, members of the medical staff that had attempted resuscitation gave evidence (on 1 March, 20 April and 8 June 2008). Some of them maintained that the blood in the lungs could be explained by the resuscitation attempts and that the balloon of the catheter had been kept tight all the time after surgery. 37.  P.V.I. did not give evidence before the court as, although summoned, she did not attend the hearings. According to several reports issued by bailiffs seeking to bring her before the court, she had left the country for Italy. Based on the material in the case file it does not appear that the court took special measures to identify her address there. 38.  The child’s father gave evidence before the Brăila District Court on 18 January 2010. He reiterated his claims for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages. He again contended that the doctors had not informed his family about the risks of surgery and in particular of the general anaesthetic and accordingly they had not given their informed consent. 39.  On 1 October 2010, after several hearings, the Brăila District Court acquitted Dr P.A. and dismissed the applicants’ civil claim as unfounded. 40.  The District Court took into account the extrajudicial forensic report submitted by Dr P.A. It noted that the conclusions of the extrajudicial report were in total contradiction to the conclusions of the medical report of 8 November 2005 and the conclusions of the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute. 41.  This judgment was upheld by a decision of the Brăila County Court delivered on 21 December 2010. 42.  The County Court did not take into account the conclusions of the extrajudicial forensic report as in its opinion it represented only extrajudicial evidence which could not set aside the conclusions of competent forensic institutes. 43.  The County Court concluded that the death of the child had been caused by the presence of blood in his airways and lungs. However, based on the evidence in the file, it was not possible to explain when the blood had entered the child’s airways because of the deflation of the catheter’s balloon. Moreover, the post-operative complications occurred ten minutes after the child had been transferred to the intensive care unit, while under the supervision of P.V.I. The County Court held therefore that Dr P.A. could not be held responsible for the deflation of the catheter’s balloon after surgery. 44.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision. They requested that the court extend the criminal investigation to P.V.I., who had had the child under her supervision in the intensive care unit. 45.  By a decision of 15 April 2011 the Galaţi Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the decisions of the lower courts. Noting that the lower courts had not examined the allegation made by the child’s parents that they had not given their consent for surgery and the general anaesthesia, the appeal court sent the file back to the Brăila District Court. 46.  On 22 December 2011 the Brăila District Court acquitted Dr P.A. It held that no causal link existed between the death of the child and the presumed omission of the medical authorities to obtain the applicants’ informed consent for the administration of a general anaesthetic. 47.  It further held that it could not establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr P.A. had been negligent in ensuring the tightness of the catheter’s balloon after surgery. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicants’ civil claim as unfounded. 48.  The court also dismissed the applicants’ request to extend the criminal investigation to P.V.I. on the grounds that, under Article 337 § 1 of the CCP, only the prosecutor could ask for the extension of the investigation to other persons while the proceedings were pending before the courts. 49.  This judgment was upheld by a final decision delivered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal on 22 May 2012. 50.  On 28 October 2008 the applicants instituted separate civil proceedings against the Brăila Emergency Hospital and doctors C.B. and P.A. in the Brăila District Court for the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages they had sustained as a result of their son’s death. 51.  On 23 April 2009, referring to Article 19 of the CCP (see paragraph 57 below), the court stayed the civil proceedings pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings. It noted that the outcome of the civil proceedings would depend to a large extent on the verdict in the criminal proceedings. 52.  On 29 January 2013 the Brăila District Court lifted the stay of the civil proceedings. However, the applicants gave up their separate civil claim on 6 March 2013.